Thursday, 10 February 2022

Bills

Sex Work Decriminalisation Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:

That the bill be now read a second time.

and Mr ONDARCHIE’s amendment:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until a redacted and de-identified copy of Ms Fiona Patten MP’s government-commissioned review is released to members of Parliament to enable scrutiny of the recommendations that have led to the proposed legislation.’.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:29): I rise to oppose the Sex Work Decriminalisation Bill 2021 on a number of grounds. First of all, I should stress this is certainly not because I oppose deregulation of business or decriminalisation in principle—the opposite in fact. It is a mark of how flawed this bill is that I will have no hesitation in voting against it, despite this instinct. Nor is it because I do not support those impacted by the legislation. Far too often the Andrews government use the opposition’s lack of support for a bill as the incorrect basis for a cheap attack, suggesting we do not care about the people they are pretending to support. That would be as false here as it always is. No, my opposition is based on a number of points surrounding the way this legislation has been created as well as around its actual content.

First of all, I am afraid we cannot escape the role that Ms Patten has played in this ever since being commissioned to review the topic in November 2019. She seems to have presided over a fait accompli—a piece of work which oddly enough endorsed her long-held position. The Sex Work Ministerial Advisory Committee did not get a look-in—indeed it is defunct—and nor did many with different perspectives, from the adult entertainment industry of Australia to smaller operators with different ideas or to survivors of the sex trade.

I note, for instance, the stance of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia, CATWA, which believes this bill and the approach it foreshadows could make sex workers less safe. CATWA work with former sex workers who have left the industry and called themselves survivors. The group claims four separate sex work survivor organisations were excluded from the government’s consultation sessions. To quote their representative Tegan Larin:

This improper process, lack of public consultation, lack of transparency, exclusion of survivors and conflict of interest leads us to believe it’s been rubber stamped, it was a done deal …

My understanding is that this group and others would have proposed to the government an alternative model, the Nordic model, which criminalises those who pay for sex work but does not punish providers of sexual services. While the model has been adopted in a growing and varied list of countries and is endorsed by advocacy groups of surprisingly different standpoints, it is not a position I am going to argue for here. But was it discussed? Was it even considered? We do not know because we have not seen the detail, nor do we know in detail who was consulted. One important point Tegan Larin makes is relevant here:

When we hear women talking about how great decriminalisation is, these aren’t … migrant women who are working day in, day out in massage parlours … and aren’t allowed to leave.

Now, perhaps all these voices were actually heard by Ms Patten, perhaps all the arguments were had, but we do not know that—and it is just not good enough. Of course no-one is arguing that names or details should be released. It would be a simple matter to redact names or to keep the evidence private and yet make the commentary and recommendations public. This is not just petty party politics or personality. The victims of crime commissioner made the same points, noting:

… I want to note my dissatisfaction and disappointment with the review process:

• the process has been a lost opportunity to transparently consider issues of violence and exploitation that sex workers experience in the industry and the most appropriate regulatory model to address these issues

• a comprehensive report should have been made public to outline the review process, the stakeholders consulted, the research and findings, the proposed model, and the rationale for the regulatory model to be adopted

She pointed out a further significant flaw:

• while the review was publicly announced in November 2019, stakeholders have … been given two weeks to consider complex and nuanced issues …

Now, all of this would have been bad enough in any normal process, but in this case there are two reasons why perhaps Ms Patten should have acted differently. The first is the suspicion, of which she is of course fully aware, of what lies behind the Andrews government’s grant to her of effective authorship of this bill and the support given to the second injection room proposal and to the promise of the cancellation of the Lord’s Prayer. Surely if she really wished to demonstrate that the price for this bill was not her support on the states of emergency and pandemic legislation, she could have gone out of her way to be transparent. And that is the second point: she is a consistent and enthusiastic advocate of just that virtue.

I have got a selection of quotes here. Back in 2018 in this place she said:

My question is for the Special Minister of State and relates to government transparency and accountability …

On Neil Mitchell on 27 October last year she said:

… I have been calling for … transparency and accountability.

To her credit:

Ms Patten has been fighting for religious accountability and transparency for more than 20 years and was the first to call for a royal commission into sex abuse in religious institutions.

In the Age of 30 October, commenting on the pandemic legislation, Ms Patten complained that:

… transparency about COVID-19 responses had been lacking …

and a few days later, on 2 November, she wrote in the Age:

Victoria is poised to lead the country in replacing state of emergency powers with rules that vastly increase transparency and accountability …

and continued:

I voted for the state of emergency on the condition that it had an end date and would be replaced by pandemic-specific legislation that would ensure—

guess what—

transparency and accountability.

Mr Finn: What she says and what she does are two different things.

Mrs McARTHUR: You are absolutely right, Mr Finn. So these are just a few examples of Ms Patten’s rightful attachment to those values. But where are they here in this process?

I come back again to my criticism of this bill. As a foregone conclusion the consultation was not wide enough, and the secrecy over its workings and recommendations undermines any confidence that alternative provisions or solutions were considered. The truncation of the stakeholder review process leads to the same conclusion.

So what are we left with in the bill itself? Essentially we have a series of provisions which arise from the flawed idea that to remove discrimination against sex workers we must remove any form of regulation that does not exist in any other industry. It is an absurd starting point. Just because an industry or its workers are regulated in a tailored manner does not mean they are stigmatised. It is simple common sense that certain jobs, professions and businesses have specific conditions attached to them. It would be quite possible, for example, to retain legislation on safe sex provisions and on mandatory health testing, both ditched by this bill, without undoing its claimed purpose. These are both very poor decisions. In a similar vein is the removal of the ban on liquor licences. Does anybody reasonably think that these things reduce stigma? They are matters of safety. It is the decriminalisation of the industry itself, not the removal of rules like this, that would achieve that object.

Nor do I accept the necessity of amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 which further attack landlords and will remove their protections respecting the refusal of accommodation to those offering sexual services or the removal of permit conditions which could see neighbours landed with businesses which significantly affect their lives in a way which, let us be honest, other home workers might not.

Again, this is not about unfair stigma, it is about equality. If any other business was established which brought in outsiders to a residential complex, perhaps at all times of the day and night, it would rightly be subject to controls. In short, removing stigma should not be achieved by removing all controls. It should be achieved by making sex work subject to the same appropriate level of regulation as any other business. That is surely undeniable. Even I would agree and argue that some businesses require more supervision than others for the health and safety of employees or participants as well as for the good of neighbours, landlords and the community. In a virtue signalling attempt to seem supportive this bill goes beyond what is sensible and removes controls which exist for important reasons.

My colleagues in the lower house tried to improve this bill. Their reasoned amendment was rejected. They asked for evidence; that too was spurned. So despite the stated good intention of this bill, I will certainly not support it.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:40): Fundamentally the bill will repeal the Sex Work Act 1994 to decriminalise consensual sex work between adults, abolish the sex work licensing system and instead regulate sex work businesses through mainstream regulators. The reason I have been careful to be very specific in defining that is to say that, yes, we are decriminalising consensual sex work, we are regulating it differently but there is regulation.

It is important for many reasons. We know that workplaces across the state are regulated, and similarly sex workers should also have regulation that is fit and proper to ensure that we safeguard them and their rights and ensure that they are able to have safe work because all Victorians deserve that.

We know that there is a stigma attached. We just know. I think it is quite naive to suggest that with the status quo we can overcome that. We know that from the intensive research and the review that has been conducted and the genuine and authentic feedback from those with a lived experience—and I think we should be very clear about that, because it is so very easy to stand back and judge when you have not been through what the people relevant to this bill have been through in their lives.

Sometimes I think about how it is so easy for human beings to define some people as ‘the other’. If I define them as ‘the other’, well, that means I do not have to look at myself and I do not need to look at the parts of me I do not like because I can see them as worse and me as better. I can define that difference and I can feel good about myself—and that is exactly what we should not be doing. What we should be doing here is remembering that we are looking at all Victorians. We are all the same, whether you like it or not; we are all equal—or we should be. I think I am actually being a little naive to suggest we are all treated equally, because we are not. Hence this is the impetus behind this reform: to drive a fairer and kinder Victoria that has respect.

Members interjecting.

Ms TAYLOR: Also can I pick up on the point—there were several points made—and I would like to be able to hear myself speak, thank you very much. Certain matters were raised about human trafficking, and I think there is a danger when you are suggesting—and I am not actually clear about the points that were being made about that by the opposition, but can I provide some clarity on this issue. There is no way that anyone in the Labor Party wants to in any way enhance or support human trafficking. Of course we do not; it is horrendous. But a core feature of human trafficking is that people have been brought into Australia against their will, meaning that solutions to address human trafficking must be coordinated with, and potentially led by, the commonwealth government, who have responsibility for immigration and border control—

Members interjecting.

Ms TAYLOR: Do you not want the facts? I am just giving you the facts. There is also no—

Members interjecting.

Ms TAYLOR: Do you want the answers or not? Or you can just make it up. Do you want to make it up? There is also no significant—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! It is getting a bit loud to my left here. It is going to be a long day. Can we just get through this? Everyone will have their chance to say their piece.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you very much. There is also no significant evidence of any increase in human trafficking following decriminalisation of sex work, as seen in New South Wales since 1995 and New Zealand since 2003. I do not actually resent the premise of people asking the question, but let us look at the facts, let us look at the evidence. That is all I am saying. That is where we are coming from. We are as concerned about that as anyone else should be, but let us look at the evidence. Both sexual assault and human trafficking remain criminal matters requiring attention, so there is nothing to suggest that the status quo in any way is going to enhance or improve that situation. Actually the impetus here is obviously to mitigate—I mean, who wants human trafficking?

I just wanted to pick up on that point because I felt it was being dangled around out there as to somehow suggest that we therefore should not be bringing these reforms through, and I think that is inappropriate.

Now, there has also been some discussion about the private nature of the report. I think it is important to note—and again, thinking about the lived experience of those for whom this legislation is most relevant—stakeholders engaged in Ms Patten’s review, and I commend Ms Patten for her extensive work, very hard work, rigorous work, in the lead-up to this legislation—

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms TAYLOR: I am about to address that point—on the condition that their contributions would be confidential, and on that basis the government has not released her report. Because appreciating and thinking about the context, in which we are moving away from criminalisation to a different kind of regulation, you can understand why there might be some resistance for people, on trust elements et cetera, because of the nature of the way they have been treated to date. So instead of constantly putting that down and sowing seeds of doubt and inferring something sinister, maybe have a little respect for the premise upon which these persons involved in the review have been very brave in coming forward and assisting in bringing forward these reforms. I commend them for that, after all they have suffered for so, so long.

Of course we will not be supporting the reasoned amendment—

Members interjecting.

Ms TAYLOR: That does not go to my point in any way, shape or form. When we are looking at the alternative regulatory operating model, under this model the key regulators, as in other industries, will be WorkSafe, which will be responsible for workplace health and safety; the Department of Health, which will be responsible for public health and infection control matters; local governments, which will be responsible for planning and public amenity; and Victoria Police, which will be responsible for criminal matters. Law enforcement and community safety issues will remain the responsibility of relevant agencies, including Victoria Police, the Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force; and the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre and the Australian Taxation Office will provide an additional regulatory overlay. Following the repeal of the Sex Work Act 1994, the Minister for Workplace Safety will be responsible for the decriminalisation of sex work, including responsibility for leading the statutory review. I do not mean to labour these points, but I think today—as it is important on any day when we are debating legislation—it is important to adhere to the factual elements, to look at the evidence and to not just sow fear and undermine this very critical reform.

I should say further that this model was developed in consultation with impacted departments and agencies across Victoria and at the commonwealth level and is a key component of ensuring smooth and effective implementation of decriminalisation reforms.

Members interjecting.

Ms TAYLOR: From what I can see from the opposition I do not even get a sense of sincerity in the way that they are handling this bill. I have to say it is extremely disappointing when we know how important it is to make sure that sex workers, like all Victorians across the state, have a safe workplace and that appropriate measures are put in place to facilitate this. I get the sense that they are not—and I say this respectfully—applying the appropriate sincerity to this debate. In light of the fearful and I think just disturbing commentary that is coming through to say, ‘The sky is going to fall in’—and I hate to use a trite comment—really this has been well considered. There has been extensive consultation and review.

The other point that I want to go to is that the status quo is not delivering what it should. Street-based sex work still occurs, and enforcement is low. It still occurs. It is naive to suggest, ‘Oh well, if we bring through these reforms, somehow everything will evolve in a different manner’. We know, and we must not be naive about this, massage parlours continue to operate as unlicensed brothels. The law is difficult for sex workers to understand and comply with; that is blatantly unfair. Sex workers are unsafe and targets of violence. Sex workers experience stigma and discrimination even when operating in the licensed sector—further to the point that was made before. This is why it is so important. Engaging with the justice system, including as victims of crime, is incredibly difficult, as is accessing essential services such as health care, housing and financial services. And you can see why there is a disincentive to do so, because of the present legislation—not the one before us of course but the status quo. It is the same with seeking further education or alternate employment, travelling and migrating overseas. You can just see how it is incredibly limiting and soul destroying in fact. I think it could be soul destroying, and I do not think I am exaggerating that, when you are under the present circumstances, in spite of the best intentions.

I am not actually having a go at previous legislators. With every step we are always trying to ameliorate and improve the outcomes in the lives of Victorians at the end of the day, but there is resistance shown by those opposite. We have got to move away from the old tar and feather, that old judgement stick, because it ain’t helping and it is not making any of us better as human beings. It is not making us happier, and it certainly is not safeguarding the health and safety of sex workers in Victoria. So I pray you will consider the facts and the evidence and remember that we are all Victorians, we should all be equal, and have consideration for that in this debate.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (10:51): I am pleased to speak on this vitally important bill today. The decriminalisation of sex work in Victoria is long overdue. I want to thank first of all the tireless advocates and sex workers who have done the hard yards, often at great personal expense, to make this happen. I also want to thank my crossbench colleague Ms Patten, vilified by some of those opposite on this, for her tireless advocacy and for leading the important review that brought us here today. To paraphrase that old expression, sex work is one of the oldest professions in the world, yet it remains one of the most stigmatised. It would be wrong to assume that by decriminalising sex work we will remove all of the harmful stigmas that come with it, but it is a vitally important first step.

Sex work comes in many forms. This Parliament has ties to sex work. One of my own staff has ties to sex work. Sex work is more common than we all know. I can guarantee you someone you know, someone you likely love, is a sex worker or was a sex worker, but the current restrictive laws and the narrative surrounding the industry often prevent workers from telling their stories. Many sex workers live in fear for their safety, in fear of being outed in their new places of employment or in fear for their privacy in their lives outside of work. The outing culture that impacts sex workers is something that needs to change, and I ask all supportive members here today to not stop at passing this bill but make a commitment alongside me to change that narrative and to put in the work to make sex work a safe and well-respected industry across the whole of society. Just like nobody should or would think twice about telling someone they were once a hospo worker or, like me, a construction worker, nobody should be made to feel shame or judgement around being a sex worker, but that is what they are being made to feel.

It has been wonderful to see the championing of this bill by groups like Scarlet Alliance and the Vixen Collective, all proudly run by current or former sex workers. It has been a real privilege for me and my office to form relationships with them over the course of this bill, and I want to thank them, especially Jules Kim and Dylan O’Hara, for the effort that they have put in to reach this point. Their passion and their commitment have been remarkable.

However, no bill is ever perfect, and while I support the decriminalisation of sex work and appreciate the government bringing this bill to this place I do have a range of amendments for its improvement, and I ask that those amendments now be circulated.

Animal Justice Party amendments circulated by Mr MEDDICK pursuant to standing orders.

Mr MEDDICK: My first amendment is in relation to retaining the criminalisation of street-based sex workers during certain hours and in certain places. This government acknowledges that the current approach of relying on police enforcement, including entrapment, does not work. It compromises safety and hinders business operation. Clearly sex workers should not be prioritising evading the police over their own health and safety. Placing periodic limitations on street-based sex work is not decriminalisation, and it directly contradicts the government’s stated intentions of making sex work safer. It simply replicates the same issues for less hours of the day, and that is not good enough.

In the Northern Territory and in New Zealand there are no limitations on sex work hours or location and, tellingly, there are also no reported issues, nor has there been an increased prevalence of street-based sex work. It is true that there are likely to be schools and places of worship near where street-based sex work takes place. This is a reality, one that should be educated on, understood and accepted. In these time frames the government is proposing an offence literally defined as being ‘present on the street’.

Another reality is that street-based sex workers make up as little as 1 per cent of all sex workers in Victoria. Sex-based street work is wrongly vilified by historical stigma and misinformation. Rory, a Victorian sex worker, says:

As a former street based sexworker, with many years’ experience working on the streets of St Kilda, I urge the government to uphold their commitment to fully decriminalise sexwork for all sexworkers in Victoria. We street based sexworkers are, by the government’s own admission, the most vulnerable to abuse, stigma, police surveillance and harassment that criminalisation enables under the current two-tier licensing regime. I myself have been subject to all of these, as a sexworker forced outside the narrow constraints of Victoria’s legalised sex industry; robberies, threats, violence, stalking, police harassment and police surveillance, both at work and while simply living my personal life in the local community.

They also say:

Decriminalising street based sex work, alongside all other sex work, will remove our largest barrier to being able to report crimes committed against us and go towards rebuilding the severely lacking trust between us and the police, who are currently the regulators of our industry.

Rory’s story is just one example of why this amendment should be supported.

My next amendment refers to the sex worker register. This government also acknowledges that the sex worker register is harmful, and this bill removes the discriminatory requirement for sex workers to register. While I applaud that important change I want to point out the intention to retain the very detailed information which is currently being stored. There are numerous accounts of how these systems have been used against sex workers and ex sex workers in relation to child custody or travel or relocation into jurisdictions where sex work is still criminalised. Other governments have repealed the registers and have destroyed the data, so it does not make sense why the Victorian government would want to retain them as historical public records. Retaining this data is a harmful form of surveillance. We want this legislation to offer real protection, and we want sex workers to have faith in the commitment. I have consulted with sex workers in the community on the real and perceived anxieties around data retention. Expunging sex workers’ records is one of the only ways to prevent the perpetuation of sex worker misinformation and stigma. Ms Taylor mentioned in her contribution that the bill seeks to make everyone equal. By not expunging the records we fundamentally defeat the bill’s purpose. Leaving people with a historical criminal record where something is no longer a crime is in fact discriminatory.

My next amendment relates to advertising. Advertising is an essential part of the health and safety strategies that sex workers use in their work to communicate with clients and negotiate consent. The proposed bill allows for the maintenance of sex industry specific advertising regulations. This is discriminatory and unnecessary. It has the potential to limit important communication and even prevent sex workers from being able to accurately describe their services. The ability to do this is entirely necessary to give and receive consent. This amendment is simple. It ensures Australia’s national advertising standards apply to sex workers as they do to everyone else, not their own set of standards that once again perpetuate stigma. If sex work is to be recognised as a legitimate industry, we cannot place limitations on the way it operates based on unfair and inaccurate assumptions.

The bill also describes attributes for anti-discrimination protections, known as protected attributes. Currently they are profession, trade and occupation. My next amendment seeks to add ‘sex’ and ‘sex worker’ as protected attributes. This is a crucial step in providing sex workers with real protection in the legal and courts system. There is no doubt that other industries are not stigmatised in the same way sex work is, and this divide plays out when sex workers attempt to take cases to court. Discourse contributes to how legitimate people view the trade to be, and my amendments here will provide robust anti-discrimination protections that enable sex workers access to redress against this pervasive discrimination.

Finally I bring an amendment on the broad definition of ‘commercial sexual services’. The bill as it stands does not include an accurate definition of ‘sex work’, putting us behind other states, which have implemented these reforms long ago. My proposed amendment in this space reflects the Northern Territory by introducing the best practice definitions of ‘sex work’ and ‘commercial sexual services’. It is not necessary—in fact it is offensive to many sex workers—to specify ‘drugs of dependence’ in this clause of the bill. No other industry would have this included in its definition, and again it maintains the harmful stigmatisation of sex work.

Sex work is real work. Whether someone is a sex worker for a short period of time or their entire working life, they deserve safety and respect in their workplace and beyond. My amendments will help to ensure that. They make a good bill even better, and I hope that they receive broad support. I also commend the bill to the house.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:04): I rise to speak specifically to a fairly narrow part of the bill, which is clauses 34 and 35, which seek to insert amendments into the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 in respect of the grounds on which discrimination is not permitted. It seeks to create a new protected attribute with respect to sex work. However, this is a provision which also has much greater application, which I would like to speak to.

What the bill seeks to do in clause 34 is insert a new provision in section 6(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act to create a new protected attribute, which is identified as ‘profession, trade or occupation’. The existing framework of the Equal Opportunity Act provides that it would be an offence to discriminate against a person on the grounds of profession, trade or occupation. Under the Equal Opportunity Act, ‘person’ is taken very broadly to mean, of course, a natural person but also is explicitly defined as including an incorporated association and by extension non-natural persons—body corporates et cetera. So it is a very significant provision which the government is seeking to insert into the Equal Opportunity Act, and I think it has very wide-reaching consequences, perhaps beyond those which the government has contemplated.

The reason given for the government inserting this provision in the Equal Opportunity Act is to address examples of discrimination against sex workers. Two years ago I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from Sex Work Law Reform Victoria, who were very helpful through a number of discussions in outlining the way in which in this instance sex workers had been discriminated against in the provision of banking services—the fact that a number of retail banks were declining to provide services to people who were working in the sex industry. They had actually done a lot of work on identifying which banks were discriminating by not providing banking services to people in the sex industry and which banks were not in fact discriminating in that way. It was a very interesting insight into the way in which discrimination on the basis of occupation or trade was occurring in Australia.

The reason I was speaking to Sex Work Law Reform Victoria in that period—as I say, they were very, very helpful in those discussions—was that a number of instances had come to my attention in respect of other occupations and professions. One which I have spoken about in this place before which has been a significant ongoing problem is the way in which businesses seek to discriminate against people who are occupied in or have businesses in the firearms sector. We have seen over the last couple of years a number of companies—cancel culture is a growing problem in this country—seek to discriminate against people working in the firearms industry. We have seen firearms retailers denied basic banking services. The National Australia Bank was one which did that; in Queensland in this instance a person who operated a small business as a retailer of firearms and ammunition not only was denied business banking services but also had their personal bank accounts withdrawn by the National Australia Bank.

More recently we have seen FedEx-TNT, as a major transport business—which has in the past carried a lot of firearms interstate, between dealers, between wholesalers and retailers et cetera—withdraw its services to the firearms sector simply because it did not want to be associated with providing services to the firearms sector, just as the National Australia Bank did not want to be associated with providing services to people who ran a gun shop. More recently we saw the Australian Finance Industry Association, which is a peak body for buy now, pay later services, publish a code under which those participants—companies like Afterpay and Zip Pay—agreed that they will not provide services to people who sell firearms, to hunters, to recreational shooters et cetera. They will not provide services to people who provide gaming services.

Increasingly we are seeing discrimination in service provision in this country and in this state based simply on cancel culture, a woke outlook from big businesses who do not want to deal with small businesses in industries that they do not like, just as we have seen in the sex work industry over a period of time.

Can I say with respect to the discrimination that we have seen with gun shops and firearms dealers that Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia CEO James Walsh has been absolutely unrelenting in pursuing these cases of discrimination and seeking to have them overturned and seeking to ensure that banking services are provided widely for people in that sector, to ensure that transport services such as those which were withdrawn by FedEx-TNT are provided widely in that sector, and more recently to get the industry code from the Australian Finance Industry Association for the buy now, pay later services also overturned so that there is not discrimination in the provision of services to businesses simply because of the industry sector they are in.

The amendment this bill brings forward today to the Equal Opportunity Act is very, very significant, because although the government’s intent—the intent of this bill—is to remove the discrimination in the provision of services to sex workers so that they are not discriminated against based purely on occupation, trade or profession, its application is much wider. The bill does not seek to limit that provision purely to the sex work sector. It is in fact going to be available in any sector, and I think this is a very, very significant change to the Equal Opportunity Act and it is going to have very, very significant ramifications. The fact that a bank will no longer be able to discriminate against a customer because it does not like the industry they are in, whether it is sex work, firearms, tobacco, gambling or something else, is very significant—likewise in the provision of buy now, pay later services, such as we have been seeing in the last year or two, as well as in other fields of service provision to businesses and to individuals. So while the coalition is opposing the bill in its totality for reasons that others have outlined, I think this is a very significant provision which we are seeing inserted into the Equal Opportunity Act, which will have implications and impacts far beyond the sex work sector.

It does raise a number of questions as to how it will work in practice. The bill provides for an exemption where the profession, trade or occupation is an inherent requirement of employment, but of course the way in which this provision will work is far beyond simply an employment relationship into service provision and other ways. As I said, the Equal Opportunity Act as it stands now has scope beyond simply the impact on an individual; it clearly identifies incorporated associations as covered by it as well as bodies corporate. So the implications of this provision are very significant.

I will have some questions for the minister in committee as to how it is going to work in practice, but this does highlight what has been an ongoing and worsening problem in Australia, not only for sex workers but for other sectors of the community, where large corporates because of their own woke culture seek to exclude customers and exclude the provision of basic services like retail banking—and who in 2022 can operate in this country without having access to a bank account? Limiting people from having a bank account in this country in this day and age is absolutely a very significant and impactful form of discrimination, and any measure which actually stops that, which ensures that banks and others must provide banking services to all customers and cannot discriminate simply on the basis of their occupation or profession or trade, is a positive step. I look forward to seeing how that will work in practice and hearing from the minister how the government believes that will work in practice.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (11:14): One of the things that has struck me throughout this debate, and indeed struck me throughout the debate in the other place, on this bill is the sense of distaste and stigma that has permeated much of the discussion from contributors. The notion that this is a somehow unsavoury industry to be part of has, I think—and not to be too cynical about it—underpinned almost all of the criticism that has come from those opposite.

I have listened very carefully to contributions which have called for the full release of a report, which have called for further consultation and which have called for a better explanation of what is proposed by this two-tier bill and the changes that will effect decriminalisation of sex work in Victoria. I cannot help but conclude that on each and every occasion the motivation for these objections lies with the nature of the industry that we are talking about, lies with the fact that it is an embarrassment for people in this chamber or as part of the parliamentary process to countenance the idea of something which is done in private, done under the cover of secrecy, done with a sense perhaps of shame or indeed a sense of entitlement in the worst of circumstances to violence, to fraud and to exploitation, something which strikes a little too close to home in the context of the ubiquity of this industry. And that shame and that discomfort and that displeasure I am talking about come from consumers of product, people and services provided in the course of the sex industry.

What I would like to do with the time that I have available today, again along the lines of what others have said in the chamber, most notably Mr Meddick and indeed others, including Ms Patten in the extensive work that she has done as part of the review, is to focus on the nature of the workers who are providing this service as they are entitled to a safe and secure workplace and as they are entitled to better recognition of the work that they do and equality within the context of workplace health and safety regulations, protection from crime and indeed the opportunity and the context and the environment to report and have investigated and prosecuted matters involving their exploitation and their vulnerability.

This is an industry which generates a huge amount of economic activity. It is, however, an industry which operates at a regulated and unregulated level. It is an industry which is notoriously hard to gauge in relation to the numbers of people who are involved as sex workers in various industries or various subsets of that industry. It is a diverse industry, and it is one in which, again, activism and advocacy have been a long time coming and have been done at a very grassroots level and one which deserves the ear of parliaments as we work toward and through these challenging issues. It is well over time, as Mr Meddick pointed out in his contribution, that we turned our minds to an equality which is well overdue for workers in this industry, and that is uncomfortable for a lot of people in this chamber. That is an uncomfortable conversation for a lot of people in the community who would like to think and maintain the illusion that payment for sexual services is not going on all around them already. News for everybody maintaining this fallacy, excuse the pun: it is.

It is everywhere, and what we know is that despite its ubiquity and indeed its popularity and its longevity, if you ask people whether they are involved as consumers or clients of sex work, you will find that almost nobody wants to say that they are, and that undermines and diminishes the really important role that the sex work industry plays in Victoria. It ignores the depth and the breadth of the work that sex workers undertake, and that is uncomfortable for people to acknowledge or to accept. The idea that a sex worker might in fact be the victim and survivor of violence, of sexual violence, of financial disadvantage and fraud, of theft, is something which I think we as parliaments have gradually, slowly, painfully slowly, come around to accepting.

It is, however, a very slow process that has involved some of the most extraordinary comments from the judiciary and from parliamentarians—to their shame, to their disgrace, to our shame—that for some reason people who provide sexual services in exchange for money are less deserving of the protection and of the assistance of services provided through police, law enforcement, health services, regulation and indeed that aboveboard process which all other industries take for granted and, in the case of those opposite, often do not wish to have in their lives. This is not to verbal a member opposite, but we have in fact heard the quote, ‘Government, just get out of our lives’, in relation to health and the pandemic response.

Ms Taylor: It’s very selective.

Ms SHING: It is so selective. What we see now is an opportunity for this place, for this Parliament, to do better, to do better by people who deserve better in an industry which has, for all of the social and cultural reasons, been subjected to this filter—this scum of shame—from consumers and from clients, because of the very uncomfortable nature of the intimacy that it involves, and not to deny on all sorts of grounds the need for change.

The review that was conducted by Ms Patten, which has led to recommendations, did not, despite the claims of those opposite, involve insufficient consultation. It involved exhaustive consultation. There have been numerous sessions, discussions, submissions and engagements not just in the course of this review but also in relation to ongoing work within the department and with agencies and stakeholders. Of course there are matters to which government must turn our mind as we work toward the implementation of changes. Of course we need to focus on a whole-of-government approach to making sure that access to services is equally available to workers in the sex worker industry across the board.

It is a source of great frustration to me that we lack data on the number of workers in the industry. Not dissimilarly to a matter very close to my heart within the LGBTIQA+ context, it is hard to know where and how to direct services when you do not know how many people might need them. It is hard, when we lack data and information, to know about trends and about emerging issues, to be able to get in front of them. It is hard for us to turn our minds to uncomfortable truths around how we as parliamentarians need to do better by every worker when we do not have the depth and the context by which to understand what we can do, how we can contribute in a beneficial sense to the way in which people want to live their lives and conduct their work.

I am hopeful that within the course of this bill and its committee stage, in the course of discussion around amendments being proposed from in fact all parts of this chamber, we can enhance the work that has already been done in the context of the review, as I mentioned earlier, conducted by Ms Patten, the engagement of the Michael Kirby Centre for Public Health and Human Rights and the work done with Victoria Police and with others, including specifically WorkSafe on the occupational health and safety framework, to achieve reform that matters.

It is interesting that when those opposite and indeed a number of speakers in the other place talk about occupational health and safety they go down the path of talking about the availability and regulation of alcohol on premises. This is an opposition that voted against industrial manslaughter. This is an opposition that picks and chooses the arguments that it wants to advance for other purposes, and when we look at the other purposes that emerge here, they are in fact about turning away from the discomfort that this subject matter involves.

I am really grateful for the voices and perspectives that I have had the benefit of listening to not just since I was elected but for a really long time now—friends and colleagues who have been sex workers, advocacy organisations both directly engaged, such as the Vixen Collective, within the industry body as a peak body representative organisation, one of many, or indeed within the health and human services framework or within specific cohorts within the sex work industry, including LGBTIQA+ folk. It has been with a sense of tenacity that these groups and individuals—an incredibly tight-knit and supportive community to the best of what I have seen—have been able to push for a change which has been such a long time coming.

I am looking forward to seeing as we work through, with the benefit of passage of this legislation, the stages that will enable reforms to decriminalise street-based work in most locations a repeal of public health offences under the Sex Work Act 1994, amendment of advertising controls applicable to the sex work industry, amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010—and hasn’t that been at the forefront of our minds at a state level and now a federal level more recently; again, something which causes a great deal of discomfort for so many of those who sit on coalition benches—and a number of other transitional arrangements.

It is also then really important to note that once this stage is bedded down there will be a second tranche of changes that commence on or before 1 December next year to include an abolition of the licensing system, re-enacting offences relating to children and coercion in other legislation following their continued operation after the Sex Work Act is repealed, amending definitions across the statute book that relate to the sex work industry, further changes to advertising controls to reflect the repeal of the licensing system, establishing appropriate liquor controls for the sex work industry, amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and a number of other consequential amendments.

This bill deserves to be part of an ongoing conversation. This bill deserves to reflect the recognition and the respect that is required and indeed demanded of this industry. This bill needs to and must face the reality of the industry, the ubiquity of the industry and the importance of respecting, recognising, assisting, supporting and resourcing the workers within that industry and of making sure that criminal activity and civil breaches are able to be investigated, prosecuted and indeed subjected to the same level of scrutiny and oversight as in every other industry.

I look forward to the discussion of this. I hope it will take place in a respectful way, and I thank every single sex worker and family member, loved one or colleague of these workers who has been part of this conversation. You have been a visible determinant of change. I hope that you know that your candour has not been for nothing and that with your support and the house’s support we can achieve a long overdue and significant reform.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:29): If this bill passes, hopefully today, it will put an end to more than a century of fear, prejudice and shame. I would call any day when this happens a great day. It is this generous spirit that I will grant you a rare day off from hearing libertarian quotes about bodily autonomy. Instead I will say this: sex work should be decriminalised because sex workers are not criminals. They should never have been treated like criminals, because consensual acts between adults where there are no victims should not be a crime. Today we can make it official that sex workers by and large do not need special laws. This finally recognises what sex workers have been trying to tell us for years: sex work is just work. At long last they are being heard. Sex work is nobody else’s moral problem and it is definitely not the business of government. In fact we should all be thankful that sex work is not the business of government. But this is far more important than a symbolic act: this legislation will save lives. Sadly, because they have been forced to work in legal grey areas, many sex workers have felt that they could not seek help from police. This has made them particularly vulnerable, and as a result they have suffered from violence at work.

Thanks to some great advocacy work by people like Matthew from Sex Work Law Reform Victoria, I have had the chance to meet sex workers who feel this fear today. Sadly, over the years countless numbers of sex workers have been assaulted, and far too many have been murdered, at work. The numbers of assaults are countless because nobody has ever bothered to count, and sex workers have been afraid to report things to police. Once this bill passes, if it should pass, they should have no fear to seek help. It may take a little while to overturn historical attitudes, but my hope is that under these new laws Victoria Police will work proactively with sex workers to make them feel safe.

The historical oppression of sex workers by this state could be attributed to some of the earliest kinds of virtue signalling, where members of Parliament tried to signal their respectability by criminalising sex work. No doubt many of these moralisers were the same people who used to make the short walk to Little Lonsdale Street, which was once Melbourne’s red-light district. In fact it is rumoured that the mace of the Victorian Parliament, which was stolen in 1891, was last seen at a brothel just across the road. And no doubt some of this great tradition of hypocrisy in this place will continue today, but hopefully not enough to prevent the passing of this bill.

These laws sent sex work into an era that lasted for more than a century. It created protection rackets. It meant sex workers, who were predominantly women, worked in fear of the law and under the control of men. Many sex workers of years gone by were single mothers who were trying to make a living in an era without welfare. As a result of these laws they were jailed, separated from their children and forced into a criminal underclass. Thank goodness those days are over, but I note there is still much to be done to improve the lives of sex workers, including the removal of financial barriers or, to use a term I have used in this place before, corporate shaming. As other members have noted, these barriers to financial services are not just around sex work but also those in other industries such as gold dealers, cryptocurrency, vape shops, tobacconists, firearm dealers and many others. We have done a lot of work in this area. Frankly, the root cause of all this is the federal regulations, and if the Liberal Democrats manage to get representation in the next election, we will be holding them to account over this.

The Liberal Democrats believe private relationships and what consenting adults choose to do with their own bodies is none of the government’s business. That is why we supported same-sex marriage and that is why we oppose vaccine mandates. I also cannot help but see some parallels between these soon-to-be-former sex work laws and our current archaic drug laws. But I digress.

Today is not a day for politicians. It should be a day of joy for sex workers and a great day for freedom in Victoria. I would like to thank those sex workers who reached out and spoke to us and helped to make this happen. Today we will make it official that you are not criminals and never should have been. Your courageous advocacy is a massive achievement for which you will rightly be seen as heroes within your community. The ghosts of Little Lonsdale Street—the women who were jailed and the children who were taken from them—are cheering you on. Today I hope we end more than a century of injustice. What a great day. The Liberal Democrats commend this bill to the house.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:34): I want to make a brief contribution to the Sex Work Decriminalisation Bill 2021. The opposition has a range of views on this, and certainly my colleagues have made a number of points. I understand the logic of the decriminalisation. I see why some want to do that, and I see why some in the industry want to do that. I do think there is much that has not been thought through about the implementation of these changes, though. I am particularly aware, through my local councils, of the issues around planning that have not been dealt with in these current arrangements. It is clear that the sex work activities that are contemplated here and are being decriminalised in this process do need to be regulated in a normal planning way, at a minimum. And there does not seem, as far as I can see from what councils have said to me, to be any sensible way forward that the government has proposed to ensure that there are proper planning processes here.

The activities of work at home are obviously quite varied, and you could draw a continuum between very low impact activities that are work at home in a particular setting and work at home in a more impactful way. It does seem to me that where someone runs a small—I will pick—consultancy business that is fundamentally online, the impact of work at home in a particular setting is likely to be very low. But where customers move in and out of a premises in significant numbers there may well be impacts on neighbours with parking, and a number of these scenarios have certainly been pointed to by councils in my area—Whitehorse, Boroondara and other councils. It seems that with the decriminalisation or the removal of any particular control on sex work, councils and communities will be powerless where there is a business that is operating in a particular setting to manage the impacts on others. That is the nature of planning laws in many respects in this sense. It seems to me that the government has not thought through the consequences of that.

Now, some people have strong moral views about these matters and would not want to see sex work located close to schools and other places. I think there are some legitimate points to be made there. Others have views about the placement of brothels in shopping centres and so forth, and these are also points that are in effect planning related. But I do think in particular the regulation of businesses that are located in apartment complexes and in more densely populated areas are legitimate questions to be raised with this bill. It is material if people are moving in and out at a reasonable frequency of particular locations. We see, for example, in a very different context, concerns about the short-stay letting that occurs in apartment complexes that impacts on neighbours and the call for regulation of the short-stay industry. I can see a similar set of scenarios occurring here, where there will be concerns expressed by those in apartment complexes in particular and the need to ensure that there is proper regulation to ensure that the impact on neighbours and the impact on others is properly managed. That is everything from traffic through to the impact on a particular floor.

I think that these are very legitimate points that are being raised with me and others by local councils in my area. These seem to me to be points that have not been thought through properly by government in this process, and there seems to have been no forward thinking about how these changes are going to be implemented. There are medical and social aspects that are being pointed to here—I am not here to judge these points, but others have made some of those points there.

There is a raft of amendments, and I will leave the discussion of those to Mr Ondarchie. He will manage the matter for us in committee, but I think my main purpose today is to point out that the representations to me and to other coalition MPs by municipal councils in our areas have been very direct and clear. They see that these changes will leave them unable to properly regulate and unable to properly put in place a planning regime that will provide security to local people.

A member interjected.

Mr DAVIS: Well, this bill in effect overrides their provisions there. There is an argument that local council is where that sort of regulation should happen, I think—where local communities are able to make decisions in that way, reflecting their needs and their requirements at a local level. With those comments, I think the bill is flawed in a number of ways, but that is the principal concern I want on record today.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:40): I am very pleased to rise to speak in support of the Sex Work Decriminalisation Bill 2021. This bill has been a long time coming, and it is a very welcome reform. Sex work is work and should be treated as such by our laws. The criminalisation of sex work has caused so much harm. It has reinforced social stigma and put sex workers at risk. The two-tiered licensing scheme in Victoria has had a similar impact, with the majority of sex workers working unlawfully. The decriminalisation of sex work is a recognition of the reality that sex work is a part of our society, that it is work and that sex workers, like all other workers, have the right to be protected.

I want to acknowledge all the people that have fought so hard and so long to see this day: all the sex workers and their allies who have petitioned, shared their stories, lobbied, written submissions, met with politicians, protested and had the courage and the conviction to stay the course for decriminalisation and the safety and wellbeing of sex workers. In particular I want to acknowledge the work of Vixen, Scarlet Alliance and the other organisations that have advocated over so many years for decriminalisation. Peer-based organisations like Vixen and Scarlet Alliance are vital. The reality is that sex workers are best placed to know how best to keep safe, how best to stay healthy and the ins and outs of their industry. We in this place should always make the effort to listen to those most affected by the laws we make here.

I further commend the government on granting Vixen funds to engage in vital health work with sex workers around Victoria. There is no question that peer-based organisations can provide effective outreach and support, particularly to more at-risk groups, and will be important in rolling out the reforms in this bill. I hope the funding can be secured on an ongoing basis. I also want to acknowledge the work of Ms Patten in shepherding this bill into existence through her work on the task force and also over her many years of advocacy.

Sex workers in this state have lived far too long with laws that single out their work from all other work and that put them at risk. The Greens have had a longstanding policy position of supporting the full decriminalisation of sex work. It is the right policy, the right thing to do, and I am proud to put our position on the record and into action by supporting this bill today.

Other speakers today have detailed the specific provisions of the legislation and its two-stage approach. It is a thoughtful and practical way to manage a significant reform like this. Overall this is a good piece of legislation that mostly does what it says it does: decriminalise sex work in Victoria—except for one glaring inconsistency. It is extremely disappointing that the bill continues the criminalisation of street-based sex work and that it does so in a way that makes the law confusing and inconsistent, singling out particular places and particular times when certain forms of sex work remain criminal acts. It is almost as though the government does not have the courage of its own convictions and is still being held back by some outdated moralistic views. It makes no sense in the logic of this important reform to keep in place barriers to services and support and continue to put at risk street-based sex workers and, even more than that, keep workers at the mercy of the police. I note Mr Meddick has circulated amendments to remove these offending provisions, and I will be supporting those amendments. Decriminalisation of sex work needs to be full decriminalisation of sex work.

Sex workers have also raised with us other concerns with the legislation that we are debating. The legislation as it is, while removing the need for sex workers to be registered, actually retains a register of sex workers as a historical document. This makes no sense and is deeply disrespectful and potentially harmful to sex workers past and present. I am pleased to hear the government has changed its mind and is now indicating an intention to destroy the register, but we would like to see this intention reflected in the bill.

Another area where sex work specific regulation is maintained in the legislation is with respect to advertising regulations. We see no reason why sex work should have specific regulations different from general advertising regulations. I understand the issue of sex work advertising regulations has been a real problem for sex workers and can inhibit their ability to frankly and safely negotiate services. I will be supporting amendments moved in the committee stage on these two issues as well as amendments to incorporate sex work specifically as a protected attribute in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and to provide a better definition of ‘sex work’.

There are a couple of other issues I also want to briefly touch on. I know there has been some disquiet in the local government sector concerning this bill and the interaction with local government and its regulatory roles and responsibilities. I appreciate the sector was given little time for consultation by the government on this important reform, but I really urge councils to respect the intent of these laws and engage in the transition process in good faith. I am confident that the local councils can get this right.

My Greens colleague in the other place, Dr Read, in his contribution on this bill spoke to the misplaced concerns regarding decriminalisation and public health. I too want to reiterate that all the evidence demonstrates that decriminalisation is key to better health outcomes for sex workers and the broader community and that voluntary health checks are more effective than mandatory health checks. The bill before us has got this right. Further to that, concerns around the influence of organised crime and sex work are best dealt with by decriminalisation. Decriminalisation empowers sex workers. It removes barriers for reporting crimes, including crimes of violence. I understand the government will move an amendment to push back the start date for the bill, given we are debating it now in 2022 instead of the end of last year. I feel the disappointment of those that have been waiting a long time for these reforms at this further delay. We will not oppose the amendment, but it is very unfortunate that it has come to this.

The unnecessary stigma around sex work continues to have very material consequences. During the COVID lockdowns sex workers struggled to access financial support available to other workers. I heard from sex workers who were down to their last dollars during that time. Sex workers themselves set up a fund to assist each other with financial support. Today is an important step towards ending that stigma and recognising and protecting the rights of sex workers to safe workplaces and to go about their lives free from discrimination. The bill is not perfect, and I look forward to the committee stage and supporting amendments to fix some of the issues in the legislation, but it is a lot overdue and a significant reform. I once again congratulate all those who have helped bring decriminalisation of sex work to Victoria and the recognition that sex work is work.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11:48): I rise to speak on the Sex Work Decriminalisation Bill 2021, and at the outset I will say that Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party will be supporting this bill. I look forward to making a respectful contribution to this debate given the stigma attached to sex work, but I suppose my contribution might be a little bit different in that I want to acknowledge the inherent vulnerabilities associated with sex work. It is only fair to the victims of crime who have been sex workers that we recognise this. I would like to state that given decriminalising street-based sex work will make this group of vulnerable women safer we think it is a good step forward, but I will discuss further our position on brothel workers and the missed opportunity this bill has faced.

However, the way this bill has been put together is, quite frankly, unprecedented. On such an important issue it is imperative that we get this right, and on so many levels this consultation has let some people down. Two weeks at the end of August was the consultation period. Interestingly, the bill was presented to Parliament just six weeks later. The government apparently conducted the consultation and then considered the 900-plus submissions and introduced a bill six weeks later. Now, I could be cynical, but I could bet that this bill was partially, if not completely, drafted before the August consultation period. It went ahead anyway to give the impression that the government consulted everyone. This is because many stakeholders were excluded from the Patten review months and months earlier, brothel owners and women’s advocacy groups among them. Well, the victims of crime commissioner was not fooled. She issued a statement when the bill was released. In it she noted that the government was implementing the review’s recommendations but would not publicly release the Patten review itself. She stated:

… I want to express my dissatisfaction and disappointment with the review process …

It goes on to list a number of ways the consultation was anything but satisfactory. What was most poignant about this letter were these words:

Without a transparent approach to the research and consultation, it is not clear how the Patten Review assessed the safety and wellbeing of sex workers and their risks of violence and exploitation.

The Municipal Association of Victoria had issues along similar lines, saying:

We are surprised and deeply disappointed in the limited amount of time Victoria’s 79 councils and the MAV have been provided with to respond to the proposed changes.

This just demonstrates the double standard that we have witnessed throughout this whole debate. Ms Patten and the sex work lobby want to recognise the sex industry as any other type of industry but will not release any details about this report. The irony here is that in the response to an FOI request for the report by another stakeholder, the government stated:

Disclosure of the document would be contrary to the public interest because they relate to matters on which government has not yet made a final decision. Such disclosure could lead to debate outside of the established decision-making processes that are in place for such matters, which would interfere with and potentially undermine the process.

What process? The process of democracy. Given the government has made a final decision on the policy, why shouldn’t it be released now if this was indeed the basis for refusal? The government has since told my office that privacy concerns are the reason for not releasing the report, because it names sex workers who were consulted. Notwithstanding that most sex workers use pseudonyms, my office communicated that we would be happy to receive a redacted version—but we have heard nothing.

On asking at the crossbench bill briefing, we were told there would be a feedback report provided to MPs, and this was supposed to capture the consultation, including generally who was consulted and more importantly who was not. To date, as of today, we have not seen a feedback report.

It is not surprising to see the bill being more contentious than it needed to be. The person asked to conduct the review, Ms Patten, has petitioned for the sex industry in the past and is the head of a key lobby group. In 2015 my colleague acknowledged that women with heroin addictions would not often choose to be sex workers if they thought they had an alternative but stopped short of calling it exploitative. She has lobbied for decades for the availability of liquor in brothels and a number of other things that the bill will also codify.

I am trying to ensure that this does not happen again with my amendment, which will require the Victorian Law Reform Commission to conduct a review of the legislation in five years, which I shall speak about later. We do not even know if the New Zealand model or any other country’s approach has been considered. New Zealand’s law decriminalised street-based sex work offences, providing more rights for sex workers, such as work cover, removed the policing approach and replaced it with a workplace health and safety approach. Importantly, though, it still maintains a certification system for brothels that have more than four workers, called a brothel owner certificate. This is sensible, and even if it was considered, we do not know why it was not backed through the review that we cannot see.

The victims of crime commissioner’s submission called for a fit and proper person standard as is required in other industries, with which I completely agree, and I am curious as to if this was considered or not.

To make all of this just a little bit more archaic, we also do not know what regulations will be in place to promote or require safe sex practices or on advertising or any other regulation for that matter. That will apparently be sorted out later.

One of the main reasons, aside from reducing stigma, that we will support the bill is encouraging sex workers to come forward with intelligence about crime. We believe and hope that the intel given to police by sex workers would benefit hugely. By decriminalising street-based offences we also hope that relationships with police benefit.

My staff have been met with a question from pro sex work lobbyists that echoes the discussion paper of why sex work should be different to any other workplace. The victims of crime commissioner puts this best, and I quote:

While this is an admirable objective, it is potentially naïve to hold other industries up as safe workplaces that can be replicated in the context of the sex work industry and its complexities of workplace safety.

In my words, it is an inherently dangerous occupation for workers—maybe not all, but certainly many. We know that many violent sexual predators often exploit sex workers as a precursor to more heinous crimes. Adrian Bayley is a sick and tragic but prime example.

While this all makes sense to us as a justice party, it is really the way the bill has been put together that we find issue with.

I want to reiterate something I said earlier about some people not acknowledging or recognising the inherent vulnerabilities of sex workers. To reduce stigma we need to recognise those that are sex workers. They can be someone who is a single mother, someone who has a substance abuse issue, someone who is homeless, someone who has a history of trauma and of course there are those who choose to be sex workers.

This is not the entire industry. My office spoke to some incredible people speaking on behalf of the sex work lobby, and I thank them for their time. Our party was designed to support children and the vulnerable, and whether people choose to admit it or not, sex workers are vulnerable. Studies have shown that involvement in sex work tends to be transient and opportunistic. According to the AIDS Council of New South Wales, the average period spent in the sex industry is about 2½ years. This is backed up by a Crimes and Misconduct Commission report from Queensland which found that most sex workers indicate they would like the opportunity to retrain for another career. To reinforce this, a 2015 Australian Institute of Criminology report, Migrant Sex Workers in Australia, found that half of such workers would stop sex work if they found other ways to earn money.

I would like to reiterate that you can have a respectful debate and encourage destigmatising of the industry whilst acknowledging the complex reality of sex work. A range of research pieces by Perkins, Pivot Legal Society, Sanders and Campbell, Child Wise and Lantz found that the people most likely to become sex workers were women entering sex work because of childcare responsibilities, supplementing the family income, following relationship breakdowns finding themselves to be single-income earners, leaving state care and needing to find an income, and increasingly university students needing to support themselves through university.

The evidence is very, very mixed when it comes to drug use, but there is certainly substantial evidence to suggest that the sex worker community have a high incidence of drug use. One of my staff visited St Kilda Gatehouse’s CEO, who provided a world of knowledge about the street-based sex work industry. For those unaware, the Gatehouse is a safe space for women involved in street-based sex work in St Kilda. Over 98 per cent of their clients have heroin or other substance abuse issues, are homeless, experience intergenerational poverty or have other challenges. They have 350 people coming through their drop-in centre every year needing help. Now tell me how this problem does not exist? I was glad to read that Ms Patten actually visited the facility, back in December, because I know she is familiar with the vulnerability that I am referring to.

This is not to say that all sex workers are vulnerable or have dependencies. That is not what I am saying. My point here is that by acknowledging the evidence and clear reality that many sex workers actually need help with these things, like long-term employment, housing, alcohol and other drugs, mental health and other issues, you may find less dependence of such persons on sex work. Just on this, we have been informed that there are no longer any outreach programs for sex workers in Victoria. So despite the government’s and Ms Patten’s intention to provide a safer place for sex workers, for those who want to leave the industry there is no outreach help available, and this is incredibly disappointing.

If you speak to Victoria Police’s specialist unit, you will realise that things you did not think could happen in this state actually do: women are exploited for money; there are pimps; international students are pushed into sexual servitude to repay debts. This happens right here in this state. Here are some of the facts. One Melbourne study found that nearly all of the participants had experienced sexual assault or other violence ‘at least once’ since they started working, according to Child Wise. Of concern is that a number of studies from the 1970s until recent years have established clear links between childhood sexual abuse or other trauma and sex work. According to research, the correlation between intrafamilial childhood sexual abuse and sex work as an occupation varies between 31 and 73 per cent.

One sex worker my office spoke to told of her 11 years experience as a sex worker in Queensland, New Zealand, New South Wales and Victoria. In each jurisdiction, despite their different laws, she would experience some sort of physical or sexual assault, including choking, which is one of the most common, bruises, bite marks and a range of other coercive behaviours. She said she had experienced stealthing at least 30 times. A 2015 survey undertaken by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Scarlet Alliance that informed their migrant sex worker report found that 80 per cent of respondents came from Chinese-speaking countries. Shockingly more than half of them had experienced domestic violence in the past, with some still seeking basic financial stability after fleeing abusive relationships.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.