First part of my submission
In this thread, Holly posted about the Review of Regulations of Brothels in NSW that was happening and pointed us to the discussion paper which asked for submissions. So I thought I would at least try to out up a submission. Not that I hold out much hope of success ... other far more authoritative sources have also told the Government that "tougher" regulation won't work. So here is the first part, basically a summary. I will be posting other parts, mostly dealing with the specific questions raised in the discussion paper in the next couple of days.
Comments welcome.
I write this submission as a frequent and long term client of the paid sex industry. I have been visiting brothels for over 20 years - since before any were legal. During this time I have made something in excess of 1,000 visits to approximately 70 brothels and "massage" parlours. However, due to the stigma and prejudices that are still attached to the industry, I will make this submission under the pseudonym EvilGenius.
While I do not speak from a legal or academic background, I think it is fair to claim that I speak from a position of significant experience of the industry - at least from the perspective of a client. I can also only speak from personal experience and on the basis of information that is already in the public domain.
Summary:
I will first address the objectives of the review. I will then provide some detail in response to the specific questions raised in the Discussion Paper.
Protection of residential amenity:
The discussion paper itself presents the results of a survey (Section 5.1 pages 29 and 30) that shows that against most of the types of impact, less than 10% of people report a negative impact. The exceptions are Antisocial behaviour (13%), "state of the neighbourhood" (10.3%), the ubiquitous Parking and Traffic (12.1%) and noise (12.5%). Interestingly only (8.5%) find a negative impact on Morality.
Superficially, this shows that sex service premises have only a minor impact on residential amenity - but the information presented in the discussion paper does not permit comparison with the relative impact compared to other types of businesses (such as fast food outlets, licensed premises, restaurants and the like). I think these other businesses would have a much greater impact on residential amenity. It is also not clear whether the "Antisocial behaviour or the "noise" is due solely to the presence of the brothel. For my own part, drawing attention to myself as I visit a brothel is the last thing I want.
Also the majority of brothels, both approved and unapproved seem to be in commercial or shopping precincts or in industrial areas.
Protection of sex workers:
Sex workers, like any other workers should be safe in their work. As the law stands, any sex worker in any establishment (whether approved or not) or a worker on the street can report crimes or other problems without fear of retribution. This might not be the case under a licensing system, where some establishments or workers continue to operate without licenses. There are a significant number of unlicensed establishments operating in Victoria and in Queensland despite the legislation in those states. The LASH Report from the Kirby Institute states that sex workers have better access to occupational health and safety and outreach services under the decriminalized system in NSW that under the regulated system in Victoria.
Section 4.2 of the discussion paper clearly states:
"A corollary of having sufficient protections for sex workers is that they should feel empowered to undertake actions that assist with or enhance their protection, ..."
If any change to legislation removes that "empowerment" for any worker, than it would have failed to meet this objective.
Safeguarding public health:
I think there is sufficient evidence in the LASH report and other reports from the Kirby Institute (and presented in this Discussion Paper) to show that the incidence of STIs in workers (and by extension clients) is as low as, or lower than the general community. These reports also show that the incidence in NSW is the same or lower than in the much more regulated industry in Victoria.
By way of comparison, the SHANTUSI Report from RHeD in Victoria showed the difficulty in even getting testing done in the unlicensed section of the industry:
"Migrant sex workers
• No migrant participants admitted to providing sexual services. Consequently, these participants argued that saliva testing was not relevant and no swabs were collected from this population."
The reluctance of this section of the industry to participate can be attributed to the fear of prosecution for operating or working without a license with the consequent fines or the possibility of prison for the operator.
In short, the Legislation we have in NSW seems to be working relatively well, but more importantly, I don't see any evidence (so far) that any of the alternative proposals have delivered demonstrably better results in terms of the stated objectives in other jurisdictions.
9 Comments
Recommended Comments