Page 2442 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 31 July 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
something which is more proactive, something that not only regulates the industry but also helps support it and its workers?
Governments in other countries do. For example, some of the Scandinavian countries set up support mechanisms for sex workers. These mechanisms can help workers who, for example, want to exit the industry. Instead of seeing registration as a barrier, why couldn’t the government see it as an opportunity to help sex workers in their employment or in the operation of their business and to help them exit if that is their wish? At least the government would not be leaving exiting sex workers out in the cold to fend for themselves.
Instead of taking the opportunity to be a friend, the government is abandoning some of the most vulnerable in our community. What would be wrong with making registration the trigger for sex workers to get information about how to access the services that they need? If privacy is an issue, why couldn’t the government set up an independent registration body with appropriate protections for sex workers and the information that they provide?
I also reflect that it is nothing more than a criticism of the record keeping and confidentiality ability of the Registrar-General, which has not been in any way substantiated by any evidence that I have heard from the minister here today, from the minister when he made his introductory statements, or during the inquiry in 2012.
Madam Speaker, instead of seizing an opportunity to help vulnerable people in a vulnerable industry, this Labor-Greens coalition has let the opportunity slip through its fingers. The bottom line for the Labor-Greens coalition on this policy is: “It is just too hard so we will make it go away.” This is why I have moved amendments 1 to 19. There is one occasion where we will oppose the clause, but if we successfully oppose the clause there are a whole lot of consequential tidy-ups that need to be done. That is why it seems like such a complicated process and why I could not simply oppose the clause simpliciter.
Let me turn to the issue of the prohibition on providing and receiving sexual services when infected with a sexually transmitted disease. The Canberra Liberals will be opposing these clauses because we do not believe that this is in the best interests of the community as a whole. I am aware of the requirements in relation to the supply and use of prophylactics and the role of determination in relation to notifiable diseases. However, in light of what I have said already in relation to what is happening in the rest of the world, I do not consider that these safeguards go far enough.
Further, on 21 June this year, in the estimates hearing, the ACT Chief Health Officer told the estimates committee that not all STDs are notifiable conditions under the current determination. He went on to speak at length about the increase in sexually transmitted diseases. He said that in the ACT there are over 1,000 cases of chlamydia each year and he described other STDs and their increase as worrying. He said that HIV, gonorrhoea and syphilis are increasing, commenting:
Those things are a worry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video