Prostitution (Regulation) Bill

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
10 October 2000

Sandra Kanck
Deputy Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2000 Spring Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: The Hon. Legh Davis's history has been very interesting and, of course, it does show-

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: No, the history of prostitution as this parliament dealt with it 100 years or so ago. It does show that prostitution is something that has ever been with us and it is a question now of how we deal with it and whether we are able to deal with it in a realistic fashion. I will be supporting the bill but, in so doing, I do not advocate for an increase in prostitution activities in this state. As a woman I am never comfortable with the objectification and commodification of women's bodies. I believe that it does a disservice to women. I thought it was quite an irony that some weeks ago I went to the briefing that the Hon. Caroline Schaefer organised with Linda Watson, who was formerly a madam in a very successful Perth brothel. We were given a copy of Who Weekly from 23 August 1999. We were talking, in a sense, because of her activities, about the commodification of women and there, on the front cover of that magazine, were three women, two of whom were in bikinis and one of whom was not in a bikini but was in a very seductive pose with her mouth open and a `come hither' look. It illustrated the fact that, no matter what we do, we do not seem to be able to get away from the commodification of women's bodies.

While I do not like it, I know it is happening and our job as MPs is to find a way to deal with it that creates the least harm. I want to ask members who are intending to oppose the legislation whether we create the least harm by criminalising those who provide sexual services in brothels but allowing those who work as escorts to go unapprehended. Do we create the least harm when we effectively disallow some disabled men, some lonely men and some socially inept men the only sensual contact that might be possible for them? I wonder who it was that decreed that sexual relations must always be offered by a woman, gratis. What is the offence that occurs when an honest, upfront payment is made for sexual relations?

I want to make some comment about what we have heard in this chamber in the past couple of weeks about this bill and also respond to some of the organised lobbying against the bill. The Hon. Robert Lawson said that the bill encourages the setting up of cottage industry. I do not understand where he got that idea because I would hardly think that eight rooms in a brothel is a cottage industry, so I am wondering whether he did, in fact, read the bill. The Hon. Robert Lawson spoke about what the police have had to say about the unworkability of the current situation. He dismissed that comment with a little bit of cute rhetoric that sounded good but had no substance to it.

When the Social Development Committee was investigating this issue, the police came along, effectively from what is now called the vice squad but at that stage was Operation Patriot. They told the committee that the current legislation and the current laws are unworkable. The police enforce the laws in some locations some of the time and in some cases, because of security gates and locks, they cannot even enter the brothel without the operator letting them in. Their solution to the whole thing, however, was to ask for increased powers to let them deal with prostitution. So, I asked them how much of their resources would be needed to stop prostitution in the state. The answer that the police gave, the answer that Operation Patriot gave, was that they could turn 100 per cent of South Australia's police resources over to trying to prevent prostitution and they would not succeed. That is something worth considering. What is it that we are trying to achieve; and is it possible to achieve it? The police said that they would not be able to achieve it.

We have been told that the police need more powers. I know that the Hon. Trevor Crothers is one of those who say that we need more powers and the Hon. Terry Cameron says that we need more powers. I want to draw members' attention to section 67 of the Summary Offences Act under a general heading of `Police powers of entry, search, etc.' It has a heading `General search warrants' and provides:

(1) Notwithstanding any law or custom to the contrary, the commissioner may issue general search warrants to such members of the police force as the commissioner thinks fit.

It provides that when the commissioner issues such a warrant it will `remain in force for six months from the date of the warrant or for a shorter period specified in the warrant'. Under subsection (4) you get an idea of how much power the police can have. It provides:

(4) The member of the police force named in any such warrant may, at any time of the day or night, exercise all or any of the following powers-

(a) the member may, with such assistants as he or she thinks necessary, enter into, break open and search any house, building, premises or place where he or she has reasonable cause to suspect that-

(iii) there is anything that may afford evidence as to the commission of an offence; or

(iv) there is anything that may be intended to be used for the purpose of committing an offence;

Obviously, members can imagine that products such as condoms would be included in that. Subsection (4)(b) provides:

The member may break open and search any cupboards, drawers, chests, trunks, boxes, packages or other things, whether fixtures or not, in which he or she has reasonable cause to suspect that-

(ii) there is anything that may afford evidence as to the commission of an offence; or

(iii) there is anything that may be intended to be used for the purpose of committing an offence;

I do not understand why people are saying that we need more police powers: they have them and they use them from time to time.

The Hon. Trevor Crothers has said that one aspect in any bill that is passed that is important to him is that we must have severe penalties for the use of a minor in prostitution. As the Hon. Legh Davis has mentioned, we dealt with this aspect earlier in the year when parliament passed the Criminal Law Consolidation (Sexual Servitude) Amendment Act. I invite the Hon. Mr Crothers to look at that act in detail to see the penalties, which are so very tough.

It has been said in the lobbying that I have received that the Victorian reforms have not worked. The Hon. Legh Davis addressed this in part, but I would like to talk about why they have not worked. There is certainly validity to the claim, and we need to determine what the stumbling blocks have been. It is because, in my opinion, the Victorian legislation is flawed. It is based on a system that requires anyone wanting to set up a brothel having to apply to their local council to do so. It is a system that ensures that anyone who wants to know where brothels are located will be able to find out.

If people want to compare our legislation to the Victorian legislation, it shows that they have not done their homework. Our legislation is much less brazen and, from that perspective, I think that those who oppose any sort of decriminalisation of prostitution might find this a more appealing model than some of the others because it is more subtle. If you do not like prostitution occurring then a model that does not put on the record the name and address of everyone who is working in the industry would surely be more preferable. If people are worried that their sons and husbands will find the brothels, then a model that is discreet (as this one is) would surely be more preferable, because the sons and the fathers would obviously be less tempted to use the services of a sex worker if they do not know where they are located.

In addition to the more up-front approach encouraged by the Victorian legislation (and this is where the fatal flaw appears in the Victorian legislation), local government was given the power of veto over every application, which power it has duly used on every occasion but one to my knowledge. There is recourse to an appeal, and that is through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but who can afford that? You need to be able to pay for lawyers. The only brothel applicants who are able to afford to do that are the large, glitzy, neon light franchise-style operations.

The one or two person operations cannot afford it and, as a result, they have opted to work illegally under the guise of massage parlours. Also a flaw in the Victorian legislation is that women who are clearly on drugs are not allowed to work in the brothels. That means that those women who are supporting a drug habit-and we are talking about some women who are supporting a $300, $400 even $500 a day drug habit-have no way of working in a legal brothel. Because they are so desperate to get their custom and to fund their habit they resort to street prostitution.

Those MPs who think that giving local government the same power of veto with the South Australian legislation are naive, have not done their research, or they are deliberately arguing this case in the hope of making the bill as unworkable as possible. Quite a large number of the letters I have received make the claim that their teenage daughter will be sent off to a brothel for work experience or that Centrelink will force her to work in a brothel on pain of losing her benefits. That is absolute nonsense. It is a common theme in many of the letters, and clearly these people have been encouraged to say this. But it does show that the writers of the letters have been very badly advised by those encouraging them to write. The Criminal Law Consolidation (Sexual-

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I am sure it has been deliberately so; I think some of these people do not want the facts to get in the way of a good argument. Section 66 of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Sexual Servitude) Amendment Act provides:

A person who compels another to provide or continue to provide commercial sexual services is guilty of the offence of inflicting sexual servitude.

If the victim is under 12 the penalty is life imprisonment, over 12 and under 18 years of age the penalty is imprisonment for 19 years and over 18 years of age the penalty is imprisonment for 15 years. I do not think that employees of Centrelink, or any other job agency, would be so stupid as to threaten their own livelihood and future as to send a young person, or any person of any age, out to work in a brothel on pain of losing their unemployment benefits. Section 68 of that act provides:

A person must not employ, engage, cause or permit a child to provide or continue to provide commercial sexual services.

There goes the theory that brothel work could be part of work experience. The people who are encouraging these gullible members of their churches to write letters in this vein are simply scaremongering. The Hon. Julian Stefani told us in his speech that the women who work in prostitution are victims. If that is true, where does he stand on keeping these victims as victims? Because once convicted under our current laws these women can never obtain a job in the Public Service. They would never be able to stand for parliament if they had a criminal conviction recorded against them. In some cases they will be prevented from entering countries if they travel overseas. They are marked for life.

If you believe that women are victims of prostitution, voting against this bill and entrenching the current laws in no way offers a solution to their being victims. It keeps them as victims. The Hon. Paul Holloway asked what benefit this legislation can bring, and he said that we must look at this issue from the point of view of the overall good of society. I agree, and perhaps he can also tell us of the social benefit of needlessly turning some women into criminals.

I express great disappointment that the Minister for Disability Services intends to vote against the bill. I gave him information about disability that I thought might have encouraged him to consider a different viewpoint. I quoted to him evidence a sex worker gave before the Social Development Committee, as follows:

I see it from the client's point of view because people with disabilities have very few avenues to express their sexuality. Some of my clients have not had a sexual experience since the time of their accident or even from the time they were born if they were born with a disability. To go to someone and feel safe and to know that they will not be treated like a piece of dirt will enhance their sexuality, it will enhance their social abilities.

The Hon. Legh Davis referred to an article in Link magazine from September 1998. He referred to it in passing, but I would like to read into the record some of the comments from the women who do provide sexual services to mostly disabled men. A few men provide services to disabled women, but they are very much a minority. Lotus said:

I sense from the majority of my customers that I'm the first female that they can talk to openly and freely about those problems that they see for themselves. It seems to be an emotional release coming to see me because they do feel accepted and they can talk. I know that some of them have been in counselling after their accident or after operations, but I don't think that it has had that emotional content that they were looking for.

Certainly, conversation has been a big part of their visit. Sex really is a very small part of the service to these gentlemen. I say that because I have got to know them, and you sense from a person what they find most value in. I think that people who have a long-term disability are functioning on a more sensitive level than people who have not gone through that type of trauma. They are looking far beyond sexual content to make themselves better.

But it is not just men who benefit from Blossom's work. I see a bisexual lady who's had very, very bad burns. She is very self conscious and for a long time it was very difficult for her to take her clothes off in front of me. This tragedy has really affected her confidence. A big part of my visit is just touching her and making her feel okay about herself.

Petal and Violet like to work as a team. When a person is newly disabled, sex really helps in all kinds of ways. A good example is a guy that was very disabled after an accident. He was paralysed on one side of his body. He was young and had lots of anger and low self esteem. For months we used to work with this guy together, because it was too difficult for one person to move him around the bed.

I really think that the acceptance and love and support that we gave him helped him to have faith in himself and get on so successfully with his rehabilitation.

Another woman, Hannah, who describes herself as a sex counsellor, said that the disability field was full of hypocrisy. She said:

They talk about empowerment and least restrictive environment but draw a line at paid sex.

I think I will leave that one to talk for itself in regard to the Minister for Disabilities' position on this bill. What is the impact of members voting against the bill? Those who vote against the bill are voting for the current position. This means that they will be voting for a system where the men, without whose demands prostitution would not exist, are not arrested but the women are.

Those who vote against this bill will be voting for a system where being on premises known to be frequented by prostitutes is illegal, where receiving money from prostitution is illegal, but where the act itself is not illegal. Those who vote against this bill are voting for a system of part-time enforcement that occurs at the whim of the Vice Squad. The police do their policing some of the time and, when they are doing it, police resources will have been diverted from dealing with real crime, such as housebreakings.

The law we have is bad law, because it makes a joke of the police and it makes a joke of our courts. It is 20 years since Robin Millhouse introduced his prostitution legislation. After 20 years we now have an opportunity to show that we can get beyond our personal likes and dislikes, beyond our prejudices and judgmental natures. I urge members not to bury their heads in the sand in the hope that, if they vote against this bill, prostitution will go away. It will not.

Let us recognise that prostitution exists. For those who are offended by it, let us find a way to deal with it, a way that is humane, even Christian; that recognises the right to dignity that sex workers have; and that does not unnecessarily turn them into criminals. We can show our maturity by voting to support this bill.