Resumed from 15 November 2007 .
HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [7.39 pm]: I rise on behalf of the Greens (WA) to support the Prostitution Amendment Bill 2007 and to welcome the reintroduction of its debate into the Legislative Council. The Greens (WA) wholeheartedly support the intention of this bill, and I had a fair amount of involvement in the research and development of the bill. In our view, the objective that we seek to achieve, and I believe this bill will achieve, is to decriminalise sex work—recognising that, of course, it is currently not a criminal matter to work as a sex worker in this state, but various aspects of the sector are criminal—at the same time subjecting it to special provisions in addition to the laws and controls that regulate other businesses. This purpose is not intended to equate with the promotion of prostitution as an acceptable career option but instead to enable sex workers to have access to the same protections afforded to other workers. In speaking to this bill, it is important to point out that the Greens neither condone nor condemn sex work, but recognise its existence in society and the enduring nature of its existence. We acknowledge that in certain situations, sex work can be harmful to sex workers, and that issue needs to be addressed by legislation or other means. The Greens have consistently lobbied for comprehensive legislation that decriminalises prostitution and regulates the industry, with an emphasis on public health. The Greens (WA) want prostitution to be managed primarily as a health issue, addressing occupational health and safety issues in particular.
The current situation in Western Australia is that sex work is largely unregulated, and the law in this area is inconsistent to say the least. Although it is not an offence to provide sexual services, a person who manages a brothel, lives off the earning of a prostitute or procures a person for prostitution is guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code. Under the Prostitution Act 2000, street prostitution is illegal. We had that debate in this place more than eight years ago. For many years, police sought to control commercial sexual services through the application of a policy known as the police containment policy. This unwritten policy operated formally from 1975, although it had operated informally for more than 100 years. Police allowed certain brothels to operate subject to police imposed conditions. The Commissioner of Police formally rescinded the containment policy in 2000. However, there is still a level of police control of the sex industry, approved brothels and a database of sex workers maintained by the police, which I will talk about later, because that is a very significant matter in this debate. This leaves the police open to potential or perceived corruption and allegations of selective policing. In 2004, the Kennedy Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers made an adverse comment on the current system due to lack of clarity, the absence of a legislative foundation and the potential to afford opportunities for corruption.
In relation to the matter of police involvement in this area, I refer to the January 2007 report of the Prostitution Law Reform Working Group, of which I was a member, entitled “Prostitution Law Reform for Western Australia ”. Page 35 mentions evidence from the police as follows —
Otherwise, the Working Group considers that existing police powers, particularly under the Prostitution Act 2000, are sufficiently broad that no further police powers are warranted.
The Working Group has also received evidence from the WA Police about the existence within the Organised Crime Division of the WA Police of a unit responsible for liaising with operators and workers at sexual services premises. The evidence presented by WA Police was of the positive effect of this interaction. The Working Group recommends that such a liaison function be maintained to provide specific contact for participants in the industry. The Working Group understands that information has been, and is collected by members of the liaison unit and is retained in a separate computer system to general police databases and that it is not generally accessible to other members of the WA Police. The Working Party recommends that such a practice continue . . .
Members will note that in the next paragraph I dissented from that recommendation; therefore, the majority of the working group made that recommendation. In the next paragraph I made the following observations —
The WA Police already have extensive powers to investigate criminal matters under the Criminal Investigation Act 2006, the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003, the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 and the Prostitution Act 2000. Despite the official ending of the police containment policy in 2000, the police have retained a unit within the Organised Crime Division of the WA Police that is responsible for liaising with operators and workers at sexual services premises. This unit maintains a database of sex workers. The Working Group is proposing a minimalist decriminalisation model in which individual sex workers will not be required to be certified. It is therefore inappropriate for the WA Police to retain their existing database and to continue the unit’s practise of contacting and obtaining the identity of sex workers and other information. The existing database should be destroyed. The Working Group is recommending that such a liaison function be maintained to provide a specific contact for participants in the industry. However, it is essential that any contact be at the initiation of the sex worker unless of course there is a specific investigation being carried out. Sex workers should have the same right to privacy as any other citizen. Under the new model the police will continue to have access to information regarding certified operators and managers.
I will talk a little more about the police involvement in this sector in a minute. The relationship between this sector and the police is one of the core reasons that the Greens (WA) are passionate about clarifying the laws in this area. It has been commented on in the Kennedy royal commission, as I said earlier, and it is clear in evidence from the sex worker sector that the role of police is totally inappropriate and at least liable to allegations of corruption, if not corruption itself. Therefore, these inadequate laws also compromise the safety and security of sex workers.
In September 2006, which was a little while ago now, the Attorney General established a working group to investigate reforms to Western Australian prostitution laws. As I say, I was a member of that group, which comprised three members of Parliament and representatives from the Department of Health and the Western Australia Police. The group considered a range of legalised, criminalised and decriminalised models, focusing in particular on a minimalist decriminalisation model. In January 2007, the working group released its report, which recommended a minimalist decriminalisation model of regulation. This model would create a framework that primarily would be conducive to public health and the safety of sex workers and protect children from being involved in prostitution.
The reason the Greens (WA) support the Prostitution Amendment Bill 2007 is that we believe it will achieve the following things. It will regulate the sector in a way that is consistent with other licensed activities, such as selling alcohol. It will improve public health by regulating and controlling people involved in the provision of prostitution and the location of operators of businesses of prostitution. The bill will empower sex workers and enable them to exercise increased control over their work conditions, improve their safety and avoid exploitation. It will strengthen the provisions that protect minors. It will prevent criminal involvement and will, certainly, minimise trafficking—I am the first to agree that total prevention in any sector is impossible. It will prevent the sector from operating underground, with the associated increased risk to workers from criminal involvement and police corruption. It will give local planning authorities the final say about the location of brothels, despite claims in public debate to the contrary.
Prostitution will exist whether it is legal or illegal. Prohibitive laws have always failed to stop prostitution; they have attracted criminal involvement and have left prostitutes vulnerable to abuse and often violence. A model is needed that will regulate the industry and provide a safe working environment for sex workers. To successfully persuade women to leave sex work, which I think is a very reasonable thing to do, the circumstances that may have led them to prostitution, such as drug addiction or sexual abuse, must be addressed first. The proposed minimalist decriminalisation model will require government departments to work in partnership with non-government outreach organisations to provide long-term support, information and education. As well as providing for a minimalist decriminalisation model, the bill will strengthen existing protections for sex workers from exploitation, including protection from coercion and inducement.
The police raised concerns both within the working group process and more broadly about the trafficking of sex workers. The police did not provide to the working group any direct evidence of such activities in Western Australia . In 2004-05, the commonwealth Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs reported that there were 290 unlawful non-citizen sex workers in Australia , of which five per cent—if we do the maths, that is approximately 15—are in WA. That is an estimate from that commonwealth research.
Also, it is worth noting that no evidence whatsoever was provided to the working group—I remind members that a senior member of the Western Australia Police was on that working group—of organised crime involvement in this sector in Western Australia . There were suggestions and broad hints, but when asked to provide concrete evidence of bikie gangs or organised crime having involvement in the sex work industry in Western Australia , the police gave no evidence. I cannot think of one reason that the police would not have given the committee such evidence if there was evidence, because this seemed to be one of the areas that the police were concerned about, and they certainly were arguing for continued unfettered access to all sex workers in the state. They did not provide one iota of evidence of organised crime, other than to say it is often associated with this sector, which I really find inadequate.
Hon Simon O’Brien : It is surprising. It is an urban myth. It is generally accepted that there is organised crime involvement in massage parlours and the like.
Hon GIZ WATSON : It is often said, but I can only operate on evidence and no evidence was provided.
Obviously, this is a debate that raises broader discussion about values and morality, and I am not at all choosing to go into that area because it is not constructive to this debate. However, I will be responding to some of the public debate, because it is true that some representatives of Christian organisations have said some strong words about this proposed legislation. Opinions differ within the Christian community about the issues surrounding sex work. I want to refer to a comment that the Social Justice Commission of the Uniting Church Synod of Western Australia made in a submission on the Prostitution Control Bill 2002. Members might remember the debate on that bill, which ultimately stalled in the upper house because it could not gain the support of either the Greens (WA) or the Liberal opposition. According to my notes, the comment was —
The Uniting Church is committed to the elimination of all types of discrimination. In this case, discrimination against women results from the criminalisation of sex work. Laws to control these activities do not deter women from working in the sex industry yet dis-empower those women who do so. Sex workers lack the protection of industrial awards, worker’s compensation, superannuation and other benefits. Sex workers are often unable to speak freely about their work for fear of discrimination.
Criminalisation of sex workers means by default they are denied their basic human rights to seek work. Since the sex industry is an established fact of all societies both ancient and modern, it is unhelpful to categorize that work as deviant and/or illegal.
A counterproposition that has been put to this approach to the laws surrounding sex workers in this state is the so-called Swedish model, which is a model that criminalises the clients of sex workers. This model has been raised in public debate in Western Australia , and that is fine. However, I want to respond to that. The criminalisation of the clients of sex workers, as has happened in Sweden , has been raised as an alternative approach. Although the Swedish approach has had the effect of reducing the visibility of sex work, Swedish researchers point out that the clients and workers have found less visible ways of making contact. Furthermore, before the legislation was changed in 1998, 80 per cent of sexual services were provided outside Sweden . This remains the case today. Also, 400 to 600 women, mainly from Eastern European countries, are still trafficked into Sweden each year. This number has remained constant over the past several years, despite legislation that criminalises the clients. It is worth noting that the motivation behind law reform is to reduce the harm currently associated with the sex industry. Moving the criminal liability to the client will not have any effect on the prevalence of prostitution; rather, it will contribute to increased harm to workers through forced invisibility. In Sweden , clients have been criminalised since 1999. Sex workers there have reported an increase in violence against workers as they undertake riskier and more clandestine meetings so that their clients are less likely to be prosecuted.
In addition, sex workers needing to protect their clients may seek assistance from more organised criminal contacts. More Swedish sex workers have crossed the border into Norway because of this law. This has, in turn, encouraged the trafficking of women from Eastern Europe into Sweden . The Swedish Ministry of Justice noted that before the law criminalising the clients was put in place, trafficking was virtually unknown in Sweden . It is now estimated that up to 500 women a year are trafficked into Sweden in the sex industry. It was reported by Kennell in 2001 that laws criminalising the client have been in place in Britain for 17 years and there is not the slightest sign of sex work dying out.
A fact sheet from the Swedish government office issued in January 2001 reported that in its study of the application of the legislation during 1999 there were difficulties in overseeing compliance with the prohibition on hidden prostitution, and there was a need for clarification of the situations and relations that fall within the scope of the act. This reiterates the fact that Swedish law drives the industry underground and is ineffective in minimising harm and safeguarding workers, who are driven into hidden prostitution and are placed at greater risk.
I want to highlight two reasons that the Greens have given their support to this bill, although it does not do everything that we would like it to achieve. This bill does not repeal the existing bad laws around street sex work. In saying that, I am neither unsympathetic nor unsupportive of residents who were experiencing totally unreasonable behaviour in their residential streets. However, the laws that were introduced into this place include legal entrapment; for example, the carrying of a condom is seen to be an indication that the person might be seeking a sex worker. Those laws are repugnant and we have never supported them, and we are disappointed that this bill does not deal with the worst aspects of those laws that remain on the statute book. However, this bill is a significant step forward, particularly in addressing the health, safety and working conditions that apply to sex workers.
I refer to page 8 of the “Report of the Prostitution Law Reform Working Group”, in which the outcomes that this bill will achieve for health, safety and working conditions are summarised as follows —
- A minimalist decriminalised model be adopted focussing on the provision of information and education to increase awareness of health and safety issues within the industry, provision of support to sex workers, reducing stigmatisation of sex workers, recognising the right of sex workers to work in a safe environment and empowering them to assert their rights.
- Measures be included in the proposed legislation to promote positive health practices and require that certain minimum health and safety requirements be maintained by operators of sexual services businesses, sex workers and clients.
- Occupational safety and health requirements under the occupational health and safety legislation continue to apply. Worksafe perform educative and enforcement functions in relation to occupational health and safety issues within the industry.
- The Department of Health work in partnership with Worksafe and non-government outreach organizations to disseminate information and education to persons involved in the sex industry. The Department of Health, Worksafe and the organizations, in consultation with relevant stakeholders in the industry, develop a code of practice to be followed in the industry.
- The level of funding of non-government outreach organizations be reviewed in light of the expected increased demand on their resources in a decriminalised model.
I might explain that that is not because there was any evidence or anticipation that there will be a boom in the number of sex workers in this state. It is quite the opposite; there is no evidence to suggest that that will be the case. It is simply that, once places operate under a decriminalised model, the likelihood that more people will engage themselves with outreach organisations increases because any question of criminality has been removed. It continues —
To ensure the rights of sex workers are safeguarded, the operator of a sexual services business be required to directly employ sex workers who provide such services at the premises or through the business ie. under a contract of service.
This is a significant issue because there are a range of people working in the sector, some who are good employers and some who are, quite frankly, very bad employers. The requirement for a contract of service will clarify their obligations. It continues —
The offence under s.7 of the Prostitution Act 2000 (WA) to engage in certain acts, such as assaulting or intimidating a person, to induce the person to act, or continue to act, as a prostitute, be extended to include circumstances covered by s.16 of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (New Zealand) including seeking to induce or compel any person into surrendering the proceeds of any commercial sexual services.
Sex workers be afforded a statutory right to refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person despite anything in a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services.
A person’s entitlements under the Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 not be lost or affected in any other way by his or her being capable of working as a sex worker if he or she refuses to do, or to continue to do, that kind of work.
There are also increased safeguards for persons under the age of 18 and obligations on the owners of the businesses. All those matters will achieve what we consider to be a primary objective of this bill; namely, to ensure that workers in this sector are afforded the same safeguard provisions of any worker in this state.
The next point I want to address in some detail is the role of the police. I have already outlined the problems that have been pointed out by the Kennedy royal commission into alleged WA police corruption. I have asked, I think, in this place a number of questions on notice, although the questions might have been asked by way of a letter to the minister, about the existence of the database. I want to address that in some detail, because in the Greens’ view and my view it is crucial that that database be removed. In a state in which, hopefully, shortly there will be a minimalist, decriminalised model for the management and regulation of the sex industry, there is no place for a secret police database. When I received answers to the questions I asked about the database, I wanted to respond to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to indicate why I believe they are thoroughly inadequate. I asked why such a database is kept. The answer is as follows —
The information is not stored in an agency open access database. This information can only be accessed and updated by a small number of Organised Crime Squad officers. This information is only used to investigate sexual exploitation, the existence of sexual servitude, the involvement of children, drug dealing, organised crime in the sex industry —
Which they could give us no evidence of —
and to enable a timely and effective response to the investigation of serious crimes committed by and upon sex workers.
The police have consistently claimed that the sole reason for vice registration is to gather intelligence. In fact, that is the sort of language we heard from WA Police and from members of the Police Service in New Zealand when the working group spoke with them. This may sound reasonable to the average person who knows nothing of the sex industry except what they see on American crime shows and in gangster movies; however, in reality, the overwhelming majority of WA sex workers have never known a drug dealer, have never witnessed sex slavery or under-age sex work in their workplace, and have never been sexually exploited, and certainly have no associates involved in organised crime.
A 2002 survey carried out by Phoenix , which was the sex worker outreach organisation, found that the average WA sex worker was in her mid-20s, and that many had completed tertiary education or were using their sex worker income to fund further study. Many were in long-term relationships and a significant number had children. These findings are supported by a recent University of Western Australia Press book called Call Girls: Private Sex Workers in Australia by Perkins and Lovejoy, a culmination of a decade of research on sex work in Australia . Sex work is not illegal in this state and the people who choose to engage in it are not criminals. The prostitution law reform debate in Hansard indicates that WA Police confirmed in 2002, 2003 and 2007 that it has found very little evidence of organised crime trafficking or under-age sex in the WA sex industry. Could it be that vice registration is favoured not for the quantity of information gathered, but for the ease with which it is extracted? Anecdotal evidence suggests that WA Police are much more likely to use the register for an investigation relating to a matter outside the sex industry—for example, questioning a former sex worker whose partner is suspected of a burglary or drug dealing—than they are to question a current sex worker about sex industry matters. Threats of disclosure are used to encourage the former sex worker to provide information. To put it bluntly, the register provides police with a convenient list of potential informants who can be easily intimidated. In the wrong hands it could also provide a list of men and women who could be blackmailed for money or sexual favours, which does happen in this state.
As for the register enabling a timely and effective response to crimes committed against sex workers as suggested by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, being identified as a current or former sex worker greatly impedes access to justice. For example, it is not hard to imagine how the police response would differ if a rape victim was identified from the register as a former sex worker. In reality, the register enables police to make a more considered response when dealing with crimes related against sex workers; that is, whether or not they will pursue the case or even attend the scene. The second question I asked was —
What information is obtained and stored on the database?
The answer was —
Information is collected regarding brothels and sex workers known to police, including the names, addresses and contact telephone numbers of brothel owners and employees. This information is provided to police voluntarily.
I do not know whether anyone else has been questioned by the police, but it is not often done so voluntarily. The response indicated that personal information is collected on the database on an A4-size pro forma document. Sex workers’ drivers’ licences are demanded, and all the information from the licence is entered onto the form, including the licence number. The car registration, make and model are also entered when available. The names and addresses of the brothel, private premises, and the sex workers’ working names are entered when the employee records from the brothel are demanded. Tax file numbers are also added. Sex workers who provide information voluntarily are usually asked for a photo, plus separate pictures of tattoos or other identifying features, which are added to the information. It is probably safe to assume that all registered entries have an accompanying photo, which would be easily acquired from the drivers’ licence database. It should also be noted that the register includes all WA sex workers, including private workers, escort workers and street-based workers, not just brothel owners and employees.
WA Police have long maintained that vice registration is voluntary. Although many sex workers have provided their personal details to police of their own volition, it is often given under false pretences and with little or no understanding of the consequence of registration. Vice registration was one of the many unwritten rules of the containment policy. Police told sex workers to register “for their own protection”. Containment brothels were instructed to make individual registration a condition of employment. Many non-containment houses followed suit to maintain amicable relationships with the police. When the police pressure brothel owners to ensure that all their staff are registered, registration becomes involuntary for the workers on those premises. Many other sex workers did not provide their personal details to police voluntarily, yet they can still be found on the register. If the condition of the employment tactic does not result in registration, police regularly resort to harassment, threats or more creative methods to secure the information; for example, sex workers have been told that they are simply providing details for an incident report or for police running the number plates of cars in the brothel car park. Police often demand that employee records of brothel owners be forwarded without the employee’s consent. In such situations, sex workers may not even be aware that they have been added to the register. Whether the personal details are volunteered, given under duress or required by deception, sex workers never have an adequate understanding of where the register will be kept, who will have access to it and how to have their details removed from it. The absence of this important information means that sex workers are unable to give informed consent to registration.
The next question I asked was —
What is considered the ‘course of normal operational business’?’
We certainly heard evidence that obtaining this information from sex workers in this state also involves posing as clients. The answer I have is as follows —
This phase refers to Organised Crime Squad sex industry personnel visiting brothels to liaise with owners and sex workers.
It is nice work if one can get it! Further —
The purpose of these visits is to investigate, gain intelligence and evidence in order to assist with objectives stated in Question 1.
The question must be asked: if, as stated in the response to question 1, there is very little evidence of organised crime, trafficking and child involvement etc in Western Australian brothels, what are police actually achieving with these regular visits? What are they really doing at the brothels if they are not questioning brothel owners and sex workers about crimes and criminal associations? It would be most interesting to see how these visits are justified in the police day books and monthly reports. This might seem kind of amusing, but it is a very serious matter in my view. I refer to the operation of the Western Australia Police, even if it involves only one or two officers, in systematically collecting all the details of sex workers in the state in the instance that it is not a criminal offence to be a sex worker.
I then asked the question —
Does this include;
a) Contacting sex workers listed in newspaper advertisements?
The answer was —
This may be necessary to gain evidence to assist with the objectives stated in Question 1.
If police contact new sex workers to ensure they are not under-age, working without the appropriate visa, working under duress etc—which I would argue is not an unreasonable thing to do—and are satisfied that none of these things is occurring, why are these sex workers’ personal details then added to the register?
My next question was regarding posing as a client. The answer was —
This may be necessary to gain evidence to assist with the objectives stated in Question 1.
Posing as a client cannot be used as evidence that a premises is operating as a brothel because the owner can claim to have no knowledge of the agreement made between the sex worker and the client. Having sex with a sex worker proves nothing other than the fact that he or she is a sex worker, which is not illegal in this state. The appalling practice of police posing as clients must be recognised for what it really is. Far from a means to investigate sexual exploitation, as stated by the police, it actually perpetuates it. Some of these clients participate in a sex service and then refuse to pay, which could be considered sexual exploitation of sex workers. If police posing as clients do pay for the service, we are talking about the police force using taxpayer funds to pay for sex, even though the act will not aid in a conviction.
My next question was —
Given that it is not an offence to provide sexual services in Western Australia , under what powers does the WA Police ‘record the details of sex workers encountered in the course of normal operational business’?
The answer was —
Once information is obtained by Police there is no requirement in law to authorise recording and retention of the information.
The Prostitution Act 2000 allows police to demand any documents from sex workers, and sex workers do not have the right to refuse. That is another problem with that piece of legislation. However, it does not refer to the recording and retention of those documents. The Freedom of Information Act 1992, however, states that a person has the right to apply to have records amended and that the agency—in this case the police—can delete the information if, in the opinion of the commissioner, the prejudice or disadvantage that the continued existence of the information will cause to the person outweighs the public interest in maintaining a complete record of information. Considering that WA sex workers have committed no crime, most can provide little or no intelligence to the WA police, the prejudice and disadvantage that this record causes to individual sex workers well outweigh any perceived value to the police or the public interest. I suggest there might be a rush of applications under this particular act to have records removed, not that I have a great deal of confidence that they would be.
My next question was —
What procedures are in place to regulate how Police Officers collect this data?
The answer was —
The collection of information from the public is regulated by the WA Police Code of Conduct.
It is a bit hard to find a WA police code of conduct, but I assume that obtaining anything by deception is generally frowned upon. There are a number of other pieces of WA legislation that detail our rights in relation to the collection and retention of personal data. Under no other circumstance that I am aware of are agencies, police or otherwise, able to add a person who has committed no crime to a database without telling them truthfully where the information will be kept, who will have access to it and how they can be removed from it—particularly without their consent or, in some cases, without their knowledge. The current practice would appear to be a breach of privacy legislation, which requires the provider of private information to be fully informed by the collecting agency of how the information will be used.
I then asked —
Do you acknowledge that the collection of this data and existence of such a database have the potential for corruption and blackmail?
The answer that was provided clearly sets out how the police can report corrupt behaviour of other police, but offers no advice to sex workers who find themselves the victim of blackmail or corruption. In an individual capacity, a sex worker has little or no power to report violence, assault or corrupt behaviour by police for fear of reprisal—that is, by the officer concerned or by the brothel owner who does not want to attract unnecessary police attention to their establishments. As a whole, the sex industry is not empowered to report corruption, and in some cases it is actively discouraged from doing so. The most recent royal commission into police corruption approached sex worker organisations seeking guidance on how best to assist sex workers to provide evidence. Requests to allow sex workers to provide evidence anonymously were denied, and, as a result, no sex worker or brothel owner gave evidence on sex industry matters. That probably explains why the comment in the Kennedy Royal Commission on corruption in this area was very brief, because it was provided with no capacity for evidence to be taken in private. Further, sex workers and former sex workers who provided evidence on non-sex industry corruption during the royal commission were described as “junkie prostitutes” by the media, and had their full names published in The West Australian, while accused police officers were referred to as “Officer A” and “Constable B”. This sort of blatant vilification serves as a warning to other sex workers who might consider reporting or testifying against police in the future.
I then asked —
Are any conditions attached to such access?
The answer was —
This information is part of a restricted access computer system.
Firstly, we are not just talking about a computer database. Police may have the information stored on a central computer, but this is not the only copy of the register. Many sex workers have witnessed police flicking through hard copy versions of the register. These were clipboard files containing copies of the pro forma documents, , complete with photographs, described in my question 2. Coincidentally, an episode of the Perth-made police reality show The Force captured one of these incidents on film, showing a group of police officers sitting around a table with a hard copy of the register document, complete with photos, strewn all over the table. Much of the scene was shot over the shoulder of a police officer with the registered documents and photos clearly visible to the viewer. It is a very secure database! Keeping paper copies of such sensitive information is irresponsible, but flicking through the file with a camera looking over one’s shoulder, and beaming the image around Australia , is clearly a breach of confidentiality.
As described in the response to question 1, the information from the computer database is often used against sex workers in matters completely unrelated to sex work, and frequently occurs long after they have stopped working in the sex industry. Anecdotal evidence spanning more than 20 years shows that WA sex workers have repeatedly had this information accessed and used against by them by police officers outside the organised crime squad. Officers have stumbled across friends and family members on the register. Traffic cops have run number plate searches on routine traffic stops and come back making snide remarks—or worse, sometimes even outing sex workers to partners and children in the car. Detectives investigating partners or associates of sex workers threaten disclosure if they do not provide information. Even regional police have accessed the information on occasions. Without question, the vice register is not a secure database.
I then asked —
Will you ensure that this data is destroyed once the Prostitution Amendment Bill 2007 is passed by parliament?
The answer I received was no. That was almost enough to make me withdraw my support for the bill! Just joking. The response was that for more than 20 years, WA sex workers have been told by the police that they are able to walk into the vice area of police—now organised crime—at any time and have their registration deleted. In 2000, Phoenix , the outreach organisation, was told to inform all registered sex workers that they could go in and have their personal details removed, marking the end of the containment policy. For all that time, sex workers and sex worker organisations have suspected that that was not really the case. The answer given by the police to this question proves them correct. Telling sex workers that they can be removed from the database whenever they want, when they clearly cannot, means that even those sex workers who volunteer their personal details are doing so under false pretences. The only way this practice will cease is by including a specific clause in sex industry legislation to outlaw it. Even after 10 years of decriminalisation in New South Wales , police still use imaginary powers to harass brothel workers. Police must be prosecuted for recording sensitive information without just cause, and anti-discrimination legislation must be introduced to stop police using knowledge of a person’s sex work status, past or present, against them in any context.
During current and previous law reform efforts, the WA government has repeatedly stated that legislation, or decriminalisation, will “protect the police from accusations of corruption” by minimising their contact with the sex industry. Data collection for the register is the most frequently used excuse for police contact with WA sex workers. Until this practice is eliminated, police will remain at risk of accusations of corruption and sex workers will remain at risk of discrimination and abuse, including assault, by police.
I then asked regarding the destruction of the data following the passage of the legislation, “If no, why not?” I asked in effect, “If they are not going to delete the database, why not?” The answer I received was —
This information will still be utilised for the objectives stated in Question 1. Deletion of this information would hinder and frustrate the investigations into historical complaints of criminal activity . . .
They were not giving us any evidence of that. Australian research shows that the average time spent working in the sex industry is generally less than 12 months. Many people on the vice register worked only a few shifts and have never done sex work again. There are also people on the register who have never been a sex worker at all, but happened to be on premises when police arrived. Do these people really deserve to be identified as a “known prostitute” for the rest of their lives? Even criminals who commit violent crimes and serve jail time are eventually able to have their records expunged and start again without their past hanging over their heads. Why are WA sex workers, who have committed no crime, not given the same opportunity?
That, at some length, is some evidence of why I think it is essential that we sort out this area of law in this state. It is an area of law in which many attempts at reform have been made—some trying to go one way and some trying to go the other way. I suggest that efforts have been made since the 1970s—over 30 years—to sort out the nonsense that is the laws that exist around sex workers in this state. If we were to poll the community, we would find that by far the majority of people would say that we should have some sensible laws that manage and regulate this activity.
Some people would rather see prostitution not exist, and I happen to be one of them, but I am also a realist. I know, because I have researched and read the evidence, from not only Australia but elsewhere, that shows that attempts at prohibition have not worked. They have only made the situation worse for those women and some men who choose to earn money in this sector. I will not make any comment on whether I think it is a good idea for people to work in this sector. I am saying it is essential that the nonsense that is the laws, and that have been fraying at the edges, should be examined. An example is the containment policy, which was not even written down but has been exercised in this state for over 100 years. It has heavily discriminated against women—often women who have limited options for supporting themselves. It is about time we sorted this out. It is about time that we also tackled this question of the ongoing involvement of the police in this sector. Unfortunately, this bill does not deal with the question of this database, which, as far as I can see, will continue to exist. I implore the minister, and through the minister the Attorney General, to sort this out. A blackmail list for the people who are on that register will exist for the rest of their lives. Unless there is some assurance that that database will be destroyed, and until we can know that that has happened, there will be question marks and allegations and more examples of the information I have spoken about tonight, which has come firsthand from people in Western Australia . To have that sort of police involvement in this sector is a blight on the state. It is very unfortunate that the royal commission was not able to hear in private the evidence of sex workers, because then some of the information that I have related tonight would be on the record. I guess it raises the question of public and private hearings. There is a place for private hearings, and one of the reasons for private hearings is to protect the identity of those people who feel intimidated not just for being harassed or beaten up, but for their lives.
Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House).
Discharge of Order and Referral to Standing Committee on LegislationMotion
HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [ 7.53 pm]: The Greens (WA) oppose the referral motion. The Minister for Child Protection has covered most of the ground that I was going to cover. I was a member of the working group. I appreciate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s acknowledgement of my role on that committee; however, I would not be a part of a working group that engaged in a sham process. I reiterate the minister’s comments that we advertised for public comment on 18 October, which was not during the Christmas period. We wrote directly to a large group of stakeholders, a considerable number of whom provided submissions. Public submissions were also made. With regard to Langtrees, it is my understanding—it is in the appendix of the report—that the committee wrote to 30 sexual services businesses throughout Western Australia. I am sure that we would not have forgotten to write to Langtrees given that is one of best known sexual services businesses in the state. I cannot recall whether it responded, but it was certainly given an opportunity to respond. I had conversations with the former manager or owner of Langtrees about this legislation on a number of occasions. I do not accept that Langtrees was not aware of it, that it was not consulted about it or that it was not given an opportunity to comment on it.
We also made strenuous efforts to meet with all the local government authorities that, to our knowledge, had brothels in their areas. Some did met with us. Some had reservations about the legislation, but by the end of the process I was pleasantly surprised by the level of consensus that was reached about this bill being a practical and workable piece of legislation that will improve the capacity for local councils to regulate what is currently an unregulated industry. Debate on this issue has been going on in Western Australia for more than 30 years. I recognise that some hold very strong views about it, but it is my view—having been canvassed on this issue more heavily than any other Legislative Council member in the past six months—that the majority of the population is not desperate to make a submission on this matter. The majority of the population—the Westpoll reflected this—wishes that Parliament would sort out this nonsense mess of laws in Western Australia. Therefore, I do not see any reason to not proceed with this bill at this time.