08 November 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I am very pleased to rise to support what is an extensive package of reforms. Regulation of the sex industry is a work in progress and has been ever since the legalisation of prostitution.
It is interesting to look back across the recent decades, particularly to the 1970s. From the 1970s to the 1990s was a time of extensive reform. The controls that were appropriate for that era — or perhaps going back further, to the 1950s and 1960s — were not appropriate for the society that evolved during the 1970s, and certainly are not appropriate for today’s society.
I am talking about reforms across the board, not just in the sex industry but also in the gaming industry, the wagering or the racing industry and certainly in the liquor industry. All of those areas were very heavily regulated. They were largely deregulated, and to some extent in many of those areas we have moved back towards a slightly more regulated environment. Probably in racing we have pretty much got it right, but in terms of the others there has been some move back towards re‑regulation.
Like the other industries I have referred to, the sex work industry certainly does need some finetuning. Why is that the case? I think the earlier parliaments were right. They went for the maximum deregulation that the community of the day would accept, and to some extent all these matters became viewed as ordinary commodities rather than as commodities, items or an industry in a special category, as they had been viewed in the past.
But clearly we know that these industries are not just commodities; they are much more than that. They are all practices that, even though they have sometimes been banned across the centuries, have always survived.
Various societies have tried and failed to prohibit the consumption of alcohol; they have tried and failed to prevent the sex industry from operating; and they have tried and failed in some cases to prevent wagering. It simply does not work.
The human race will always find a way to indulge its vices. I do not say that in the dictionary sense of the word in terms of immoral or wicked behaviour; but generally, in terms of behaviour, people always find a way to indulge their vices, so we need an appropriate framework.
We need to strike a balance between regulation and the capacity for the population to conduct what is a legitimate activity — and they are all legitimate activities — and also, of course, to consider the people who work in these industries as well.
There has been some commentary of a rather inflammatory nature around this bill. There was a suggestion fairly early on that this legislation was a return to the days of the vice squad. Any objective reading of the bill makes it clear that this is not a return to the days of the vice squad. I am talking about commentary outside the house; I am not referring to any debate that may have gone on earlier.
There were also some comments from the former member for Essendon which I want to focus on briefly.
I must say that I have a high regard for the immediate former member for Essendon, Mrs Maddigan; we worked in harness together well, with me as deputy chair to her chair of the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee. Mrs Maddigan was quoted in the Age of 13 October in reference to this bill. The Age reported her as saying that the bill:
… shows a total misunderstanding on (the part) of the government about how the sex industry works …
I firstly make the observation that the bill was second read well after dinner on the evening of 12 October, so I am surprised that Mrs Maddigan had the opportunity to read, consider and digest the contents of the bill, offer comment to the press and have it printed the next morning.
Also, the commentary that is made seems to refer to something other than the bill before the house.
The article goes on — it is not a quote but it is certainly comment — to talk about the need to consider this legislation as a social welfare matter and not an enforcement matter, and says that there was some misunderstanding there.
If there was any misunderstanding, I think you would have to say it was on the part of the former member rather than on the part of the government, because clearly what is proposed in the bill does not bear any relation to her comments.
I want to refer quickly to some comments from the MAV (Municipal Association of Victoria), which does understand what the bill is trying to achieve. The president of the MAV in a press release on 13 October said that:
… since 2003 local government had been calling for changes to strengthen the capacity of all agencies to deal with unlicensed brothels, and particularly the restoration of an explicit role for the police.
That is exactly what this bill does. It is eight years since the MAV first made the call: it has taken a coalition government to do it, and it is good legislation. I commend the bill to the house.
Printer Friendly Version...