Page 2387 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 31 July 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
change in language is justified on grounds that the existing language is pejorative, derogatory, stigmatising and discriminates against sex workers. But there is no discussion as to how the new language will change those labels. While the proposal is not offensive in itself, it seems based more on ideology than evidence. Nonetheless, the Canberra Liberals will not oppose it.
This bill also deregulates the industry such that sole traders will not be required to register or to provide annual notices to the Commissioner for Fair Trading. The Canberra Liberals will be opposing these proposals. I will address the reason for that further in the detail stage of the debate.
Another amendment contained in this bill would seek to make the offence of causing a child to provide commercial sexual services an absolute offence, regardless of the child’s age—that is, so long as they are under 18. Currently, it is an absolute offence when the child is 12 years or under. But the recommendations of the committee of inquiry, and these provisions here, will remove the defence of mistake of fact as currently exists for strict liability offences relating to children over 12 years.
However, a possible defence remains available to a defendant if they can establish that they took reasonable steps to ascertain a child’s age and believed on reasonable grounds that the person was over 18 years of age. In his presentation speech, the minister noted that the argument for reasonableness is a matter for the courts. But he did suggest that “sighting a drivers licence or other proof of age document” may be sufficient.
The question still arises: is this enough? The tragic death of an underage girl who died of a heroin overdose in a Fyshwick brothel, which contributed to the decision of the JACS committee to conduct an inquiry in 2012, raises questions. In that case, the brothel operators were charged with offences under the act. In their defence, their lawyer argued that they had taken reasonable steps. So the question remains very much open as to what constitutes reasonable steps and coming to a position on reasonable grounds. Nonetheless, it does provide some tightening; so the Canberra Liberals will not oppose it. Future events, no doubt, will test its usefulness.
Another amendment in this bill would remove the offence for a sex worker to give, or a client to receive, commercial sexual services if either is infected with a sexually transmitted infection. However, section 27 will remain in force. That requires the sex worker and the client to use a prophylactic as relevant. It also remains an offence under the public health regulation if the individual fails to take reasonable precautions against transmitting a notifiable condition. Once again, I believe the government has failed to consider all the possibilities. The Canberra Liberals will be opposing this amendment. I will address this matter further in the detail stage.
This bill also requires operators of brothels and escort agencies to provide appropriate personal, protective and safety equipment, including prophylactics, to sex workers free of charge. While this does go some way to improving the safety of sex workers, it does not alter our position on the amendment that would allow infected workers and clients to provide and receive sexual services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video