Page 5251 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
does not prohibit prostitution. Most strongly stated objections are morally based, but some relate to concerns about protection of the health of our community.
Whatever the reason for this, often heartfelt, opposition may be, it is important that we acknowledge and understand it. Any complete analysis or proposal for change demands that. One would expect the views of those in, or supportive of, the sex industry would be in stark contrast to those who oppose it. The situation is, however, quite the contrary.
While some strongly support the maintenance of a registration requirement, others argue that it has the adverse impact of driving prostitutes “underground” rather than bringing them into a safe, regulated environment. Similarly, it has been argued that section 25 of the act, which prescribes an offence in relation to knowingly infecting another person with a sexually transmissible infection, has a negative impact on community health. The argument put is that a sex worker who is infected will not disclose that infection because disclosure immediately disqualifies the person from practising in their occupation.
Of course, a significant development in the life of the territory since the Prostitution Act has been the adoption of a formal human rights framework. It has been put to me that the prohibition of prostitution is contrary to the Human Rights Act 2004. Against that, the government would put the balance in favour of protecting the community from infection. These are all issues that it would be appropriate for the committee to inquire into. Operationally, the Prostitution Act falls within the responsibilities of several areas of ACT administration. The main responsibilities are divided between the Office of Regulatory Services and ACT Policing.
Some concerns have been expressed about the powers of those organisations to ensure a high level of compliance, and it would be useful to examine what compliance and enforcement powers are appropriate. No regulatory system can realistically be expected to be perfect, either in its form or its operation. In relation to the Prostitution Act, there are some specific events that the government has considerable concern about, not because the various regulatory agencies have failed to operate in the most effective manner possible in the circumstances, but because there may be opportunities to reform the law in this area to better protect licensees, employees, young people, migrants, visitors and clients of the sex industry.
The regulatory performance of agencies in this area since passage of the Prostitution Act has been good, but there have been some notable experiences that we should learn from. A few years ago, a male sex worker from interstate provided unprotected sexual services to another man in the ACT knowing that he was infected with HIV. The Australian Sex Workers Association submitted that this case supported the removal of section 25 of the act—the offence of providing or receiving sexual services knowing that you are infected—because sex workers who are aware of the offence are reluctant to reveal their health status. Similarly, in September 2008, a 17-year-old died in a Canberra brothel from an overdose of drugs. This raised concerns about the oversight of employment of sex workers.
A standing committee inquiry would examine the processes in place for regulation of the industry, with the aim of identifying reforms that protect sex
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video