Page 725 - Week 02 - Thursday, 23 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
through the department of health, which actually had a delineation that that was so. Dentistry was one, medical practice was another, nursing was another. And there was hospitality, particularly in restaurants and industries where fresh food was prepared and consumed, whether it was wholesale or retail.
There is the same need for protection here, which protects the consumer and also the provider. The approach is an occupational health and safety approach. We are not talking about trying to save somebody’s soul here. We are trying to provide an environment where somebody can engage in a legitimate industry without fear of harm.
Recommendation 2 talks about the industry being treated by regulatory regimes in a similar fashion to those other industries I have just mentioned. The people who would propose that this industry be abolished would like to have it singled out for a much stricter regime than would be applied to other industries and other occupations. I do not believe that that should be the case.
We need to understand that the registration of businesses is just that—it is the registration of a business. The checking on whether or not a business is operating in a safe environment is a regulatory thing. I do not see any difference, for example, between the inspection of a brothel and the inspection of a dental premises. They still have those same elements in place. We should make sure that we do not over-regulate it just because somebody does not like that industry, because somebody has a moral problem with that industry or because there is a religious issue around that industry.
Recommendation 3 talks about changing the name of the act. There is a stigma attached to the word “prostitution” and I think the Canberra community has moved on. Prostitution also is not a particularly wide enough definition of activities within what we could call the sex industry. So we recommend that the name of the act be changed and that the reference to the word “prostitute”, carrying as it does that stigma, be removed and substituted with “sex work”. I draw members’ attention to the commentary in the report around that.
One of the major things that we did agree on was recommendation 5. This is where it goes to criminality. We believe that section 20 of the act should apply to children and young people up to the age of 18, that it should be an absolute liability offence, and that sections 20 and 22 of the act should be amended to reflect this.
We believe there is no excuse, and there should be no defence, where a person under the age of 18 is involved. It is about the protection of children. They are not of an age where they can make a free and informed decision. In the same way that we make it an offence for a young person to go into a poker machine lounge, and it is an absolute liability offence, so should it be the case in this legislation. I see no difference, and I see a responsibility for the community to protect the kids. I think that is reflected in this recommendation.
I believe that sections 24 and 25 of the act duplicate unnecessarily the provisions in the Public Health Regulation. We have asked for those to be removed and that there be a cross-reference to highlight that it exists. The Health Act, the Public Health
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video