Page 726 - Week 02 - Thursday, 23 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Regulation 2000, ought to have primacy over the lot. The protection of people’s health in any industry should have primacy.
It is important that we understand and appreciate the evidence that was given to us around the operation of the sex industry in the suburbs by sole operators. I believe we accepted the evidence from practitioners in the suburbs that operating as a sole operator was a decidedly risky business. The risk of harm to the sex worker was high. We believed that recommending a figure as high as four or five or more would actually mean it would be a pseudo-brothel anyway. But we did believe that there would be mutual protection if we allowed two people to operate from a single premises, provided that they were not in an employee-employer relationship, because to do so would mean that they would be operating as a brothel. But to have people there so that they can provide protection for each other, we felt, was particularly important, and I accepted that evidence.
We did say that we did not agree that sole operators needed to be registered with the ORS. We saw no reason for them to be registered. They were never checked. It was the case that there were quite a number of operators in the ACT without registration because they feared for their own privacy. They feared that the information contained on that register would not necessarily be used for the right purposes. They could not be sure that it would be destroyed. In fact, the evidence was that they could be almost guaranteed that it would not be destroyed if they indicated they were exiting the industry.
We could see no reason why a sole operator should actually have to be registered. We have people operating in the suburbs, out of garages and out of offices in their homes, who operate in industries where they are not required to be registered. So we could not see why that was necessary.
We did say that persons holding the personal information of sex workers should be required to do so in accordance with the Privacy Act. We understand that it is not a requirement for them to respect the Privacy Act, to be bound by the Privacy Act 1988—the commonwealth legislation. We believe they should be. If anybody is going to hold any information about any other private individual then that information should have the protection of the Privacy Act.
Ms Hunter raised the issue, and I supported it quite quickly, that information held around sex workers should not be disclosed to anybody without a proper reason. The point that she made, and it is in recommendation 16, is that the information should only be disclosed to police investigating a crime, on presentation of a warrant. In other words, somebody cannot just barrel up to a premises and say, “I want information on that person,” and they get it.
For example, with children, youth and family services, a person might want to go to ORS and say, “I’ve got a suggestion that this person is operating as a sex worker in the suburbs; can you tell me what it’s all about?” Without showing cause and the reason why you might want it then we do not believe that information should be available. We also believe that any changes that may come out of this ought to be subject to review after five years. We think five years is quite a reasonable time, and that it should actually cross over the boundaries of an election.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video