25 September 2024
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:17): I rise to speak against the Statutes Amendment (Sex Industry—Exit Strategies and Spent Convictions) Bill. In so doing, I draw on the longstanding policy of the Greens. We have always supported the decriminalisation of sex work. Indeed, on a personal level, I have always supported the decriminalisation of sex work, and I think it is high time South Australia joined other states in legislating in that regard.
I think it is relevant to this debate to look at the views of people who work in this industry, so I do want to take a few minutes to read the statement that has been provided to me by SIN, the Sex Industry Network. SIN is a peer-based organisation funded by SA Health to promote the health, rights and wellbeing of SA sex workers. Reading from their correspondence:
We are a member-based organisation and are best placed to deliver broad and consultative feedback on legislation affecting sex workers.
In June of 2024, the Honorable Nicola Centofanti, MLC, introduced a Bill to amend the Spent Convictions Act 2009 and the Summary Offenses Act 1953. The Bill seeks to do the following—
- Expunge certain sex work/sex industry related convictions under strict parameters.
- Apply for Ministerial assistance to leave the sex industry.
- Change the definition of sex work in current legislation.
While SIN, and the broader sex worker rights movement, support spent convictions and expedited assistance for sex workers, we have grave concerns regarding the following—
and I will read out some of their concerns for the benefit of Hansard—
- The parameters for accessing the spent convictions and amendments.
- In [the Hon. Nicola] Centofanti's bill an individual must 'demonstrate' they have been out of the sex industry for a minimum of 3 months; they must also 'demonstrate' an intention not to engage in sex work in the future. It is not clear how or what demonstration may involve. The inclusion of these caveats is stigmatising and discriminatory. The bill is effectively saying that the only cohort able to access spent convictions amendments are those who have renounced the sex industry and positioned themselves as victims. These amendments DO NOT recognise sex work as work and do not acknowledge the value inherent in spent convictions for sex workers broadly.
- The parameters for accessing Ministerial assistance.
- The bill requires the minister to be 'reasonably satisfied' that the applicant 'genuinely' wishes to leave the sex industry. Leaving the sex industry involves demonstrating an intention not to engage in sex work in the future. The nature of this demonstration is not clear, nor are the government's financial and administrative responsibilities and parameters regarding assistance.
- The barriers existing criminalisation laws cause.
- Under the current criminalised framework, many sex workers have no appetite to engage formal government support. The Ministerial assistance program proposed by [the Hon. Nicola] Centofanti's bill will require disclosure of sex worker status to a government body. This, coupled with a requirement to demonstrate a genuine desire to leave the sex industry, will cause many past and present sex workers to reject the strategy outright.
Finally, the correspondence notes:
- The title of the Bill and the language in the Bill.
- Language is powerful. Using the word 'Exit' is stigmatizing and derogatory. This is targeted language that we don't use for any other industry. We recommend removing any mention of exiting the sex industry and using alternative language instead.
I am inclined to agree that a lot of the language in this debate features quite paternalistic and patronising assumptions about people who work in sex work and assumptions about their life conditions and their personal circumstances. It continues:
SIN recommends opposing the Bill in its current form.
And I support their recommendation.