Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - I want to make a very short contribution at this stage because most of the matters I now want to refer to will be discussed at some further length in the Committee stage.
When I spoke initially on this bill I spoke at some length and I raised a number of issues at that stage that I would like the Government to look at. It is heartening that the Government have looked at many of the issues I raised and some of those issues are reflected in this current bill. For that I am indebted to the Government and I thank them.
I also thank them for the number of briefings that we have had but I raised some concern yesterday and I raise it again here today. It has not been a real level playing field, as it were, because the original bill was out in the public arena for a very long period of time. Both sides had a long time to look at that bill and those who were opposed to it went into great detail and depth to put their issues forward. Those who were working in the sex industry at that time were, in the greater majority, satisfied and happy with the original bill but now that has changed, absolutely turned the full circle, and those same people in the sex industry on this occasion have not been given the same ability to look at the bill as it is now produced within this Chamber. That concerns me somewhat - I am always about fairness to all sides - and that was raised yesterday during the briefings, Mr President.
I want to briefly raise the matter of police powers and these matters have already been raised so I am not going to do it in any depth. In my second reading contribution in relation to the aborted bill or the bill that is currently still there that was deferred, I raised a number of issues concerning the ability of police to investigate these matters. I believe that there was the ability at that stage to police these issues but I conceded that there was probably a need to make the police powers much stronger to make it much easier for them to work within this legislation. That is taken care of in this current bill and I support it. I do not think there would be too many out there who would not support it because if we expect the police to do a job, if we want them to do a job, Mr President, then we need to give them the basic tools. We need to give them the legislation to work within. Commander Edwards mentioned that yesterday and I support that and therefore I support the position the Government has taken on this occasion.
I believe that protection of informants is an essential ingredient of this legislation because people are very reluctant to come forward and provide police with information if there is some belief that their identities may well be revealed. I agree with the legislation and I support the legislation in that regard.

Mr Harriss - Is there anonymity now?

Mr DEAN - Anonymity applies pretty well across the board to police and information provided to police and they are able to protect that in most instances.

Mr Harriss - There is immunity from prosecution.

Mr DEAN - The informants are protected in the main by the police and they do not have to identify their informants and there is a lot of legislation in relation to this, where it has gone through the courts and so on. That relates to just about right across the board with information that is provided to police.
I want to mention a couple of areas I mentioned yesterday, Mr President. I want to mention the one on publicity or advertising and I am somewhat concerned that this bill does not touch advertising at all. I am just wondering where we are going to go with that. It may well come down to being a matter for local governments to look at, I suspect. But I would have thought there would have been something here somewhere to control that. I would hate to see people working from their own home or from another premises with signs identifying those businesses stuck up all around the place, particularly if one of these homes happens to be next door to a school, church or a childcare centre. So it does raise a few concerns and during the second reading debate on the sex regulation bill the issue of where these places could set up was raised.

Ms Thorp - Through you, Mr President - don't forget that they would have been legitimate business establishments under the original bill, so signage was quite a pertinent issue but now it's not the same case.

Mr DEAN - No, it is not the same thing, but I can see that where some of these establishments are being used - perhaps two persons working from a premises, and they can do that - they might want to advertise.

Ms Thorp - I would suspect they might be using a newspaper or mobile phone numbers.

Mr DEAN - Maybe, but there might well be other forms of advertising as well -

Ms Thorp - Signage would be a local government issue.

Mr DEAN - like leaving doors open and red lights on and things of that nature, which I understand applies in a north-west town currently. A door is left open of a night, a red light is on in the passage and that is advertising the fact that those premises are being used for the purposes of prostitution. So there ought to have been some restrictions there.
But there are some dilemmas in this bill for local government. I suspect it will create some dilemmas for them. I should imagine that once this bill is accepted, if it is accepted at the end of the day and I suspect it will be, that local government will probably be running to make some changes to their planning schemes to work in with this legislation. Currently under the Launceston planning scheme I am aware that home occupations would cover this to some degree. In other words, provided it is a person's place of residence, they would be able to operate from that home and council cannot really do anything about it. But it changes when that person, together with another person, moves into another home which is not their normal place of residence. It becomes discretionary and it is then a matter for council to determine whether or not they will allow those premises to be used for these purposes. So it will cause some difficulties there for local government, as I was told at lunchtime, and I suggest that there will need to be a number of amendments to their planning schemes.
It is not all that clearer sailing for them right at this present time. As I have already said, I will keep most of my discussion for the Committee stage. We have heard about Dr Mary Anne Layden. This lady has written papers and documents. I just want to set the scene. I want to make a couple of quotes from a document that the doctor has provided on this which supports the position that the Government is now taking as to why commercial prostitution should not be supported and legalised.
Dr Mary Anne Layden is a psychotherapist and Director of Education at the Center for Cognitive Therapy at the University of Pennsylvania, co-director of a sexual trauma and psychopathology program and a director of the Social Action Committee for Women's Psychological Health. The doctor also specialises in the treatment of victims and perpetrators of sexual violence and sexual addiction. She has lectured extensively in both the United States and overseas on cognitive therapy, personality disorders, childhood sexual trauma, sexual addiction, and the sex industry and imagery techniques. I want to make one or two comments from the paper that she read and I make the first quote:
'I'm going to give you my definition of the sexual exploitation industry, which for me is sexual abuse for money. Now, the fact that money is involved doesn't make it not sexually abusive. It is sexual abuse that just involves money, nothing more, nothing less.'
It was interesting that in the first bill, the regulation bill as it was, presented to this Chamber, it identified the protection of children and exploitation of children but it did not provide protection of women from exploitation. That is now included in this current offence act which to me is good, as referred to here by Dr Mary Anne Layden. It is good to see the Government taking that position now of identifying the fact that women also are considerably exploited in the area of prostitution. This is another quote:
'We've focused on finding the victims and maybe doing something for the victims; we've tried to figure out how to get the street prostitutes off the street and into the buildings. We've tried all kinds of things, but very little focus on demand. Very little on how do we reduce the demand for these things.'
I think that is important and one can identify with the Swedish legislation that now makes it an offence for clients to use these services. The current legislation here today identifies that clients in certain circumstances can be charged also. I think that we are now changing that somewhat and we are looking at the demand side of it and we are trying to place some responsibility on those people who demand these services. So anybody who thinks that legalisation solves a problem has not seen how the problem really works. You have to work on the issue of demand.
I want to refer to this quote which identifies some of the statistical data currently available in Australia:
'Here are a few things that are Australian statistics. One in 6 adult women experience sexual assault before the age of 15; 1 in 4 girls, 1 in 7 boys are sexually abused. Twenty-nine per cent increase in sexual assault between '99 and 2003. Risk of sexual assault for adult women is double if you were abused as a child. So all of those statistics are just to say we've a problem. And it's a world-wide problem. We've got a whole world that is suffering from these consequences of these kinds of behaviours, these kinds of assaults, and that many of the people who are suffering are children. We are allowing the rape of our children.'
Mr President, that is really all I wanted to say at this stage. As I said, I support the bill. I did raise a question at one stage as to whether or not it has now gone too far the other way but it is certainly a bill that I am more content with, as have been a number of people who have approached me. As I said at the beginning, I have not had the opportunity, unfortunately, to talk with those people out there who have some involvement with the industry and I can only gauge from some of the comment that was being made yesterday that they are far from happy with the current bill that is before us. As I said, I have not had a lot of opportunity to do anything about it which I guess is unsatisfactory from my point of view.
Mr President, I will leave my further discussion to the Committee stage.

In Committee

Clause 14 -
(Hindering or obstructing police officers)
Mr DEAN - Madam Deputy Chair, I want to raise the issue I raised yesterday. I am still uncomfortable with the position there not to 'hinder or obstruct'. 'Hinder' is a word that does not identify with much activity to commit that act, to hinder. If we look at the dictionary, from memory it says 'to impede, slow down' or what have you and I would have liked to have seen the words 'intention', 'intentional' and/or 'deliberately' in there because it places a greater onus on the police, I would suggest. If there is an act which they believe might have impeded their progress then they would look closer at it if the words 'intentional' or 'deliberate' were in there. If it is not in there then if their progress is slowed down it would be a matter where police could quite properly arrest and do all the other things that they need to do. I think somebody quipped yesterday, 'Well, they can prove to the court that it wasn't intentional' but why do we need to go to a court for that purpose? Why should we not put some of the onus and some of the responsibility back on police for them to have to be able to show that there is evidence to suggest that it was intentional?
I am uncomfortable with it. I do not know what the rest of the members feel about it but if there is no support then I have to accept it. I just feel uncomfortable with it at the present time because of the way it is written; I do not believe it is quite strong enough. I would be surprised if the police would be vehemently opposed to that, but maybe they are.

Ms THORP - The remarks made by the honourable member yesterday were considered and taken up and questions asked but it was just generally felt that this unnecessarily complicated this part and I think we have to be careful here not to become confused between lay use of language and legal use of language because the use of 'hinder' in this instance is an active and not a passive sense of the word and given due consideration of the concerns raised by the member, it was felt that the concern did not need the required change to the legislation.

Mr DEAN - There is no other support so I accept that.

Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.