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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3178 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

This very important provision will ensure that people who have been convicted of previous offences which are relevant to this industry and whom a reasonable person would not want operating a brothel, are in fact excluded. Accordingly, I commend that part of the legislation.

I thank the Chief Minister for responding to the scrutiny of bills committee report No 19. There was a concern that clause 26 would derogate from section 16 of the Spent Convictions Act 2000 by requiring a person to disclose previous convictions for the purposes of the Prostitution Act. I accept the fact that the government has the view that there is an important public purpose in ensuring that individuals with convictions for serious criminal offences are not in a position of authority in an industry where workers are vulnerable to exploitation and that the public purpose outweighs interference with the rights of the individual.

The scrutiny of bills committee is tasked in its terms of reference with looking specifically at issues such as civil rights and the liberties of the individual. This is one of the reasons why we don't need a bill of rights; and it is something that New South Wales is going down the track of rather than having a bill of rights. Although this arrangement serves us well, obviously on occasions government bills and private members bills put forward propositions that are contrary to the terms of reference of the committee and, in weighing the rights of the individual against the rights of the public, the committee quite clearly comes down with a decision that the public good rather than the rights of the individual must be upheld. Accordingly, I accept the government's explanation in relation to that point.

I want to refer to another issue, and I thank the Chief Minister and Attorney for a briefing on this. I recall some discussion when we were in government about medical certificates and the examination of workers in relation to sexually transmitted diseases. The Attorney, at page 4 of his introductory speech, talked in some detail about the bill removing from the act provisions relating to designated medical officers-"designated medical officers" being doctors nominated by the Chief Health Officer.

I made some inquiries and asked some questions in relation to that, as I had some concerns. I recall some conversations and arguments-they were more discussions than arguments-that I had in cabinet with Mr Moore about that point. I note as a result of that that doctors and also pathologists have dual reporting obligations for sexually transmitted diseases. That was not the case before, hence clause 17 of the bill. There is now no scope for forum shopping, which was a concern before. I recall when I was last looking at this matter that that was a concern the department had.

I was surprised to see in some interesting information that the Gilmore Clinic found in their survey that the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases amongst prostitutes was in fact lower than that in the general community. So I think that shows the system is working.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker: I am glad to see that the bill is on the table. It proposes some good advances which have resulted from a lot of consultation following the 1999 review. I am pleased to see that this work is now being taken forward by the current government and put into legislation. Accordingly, the opposition will be supporting this bill.

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