• If you are having any problems posting threads plz message Kate. since latest update we have had 6 members with problems, sorted those but yet to find the problem.

Laws in WA

Pandabear930

Pandabear930

Bronze Member
Hi,
I have seen the last update to these forums was some time ago. So I was wondering if there has been any updates to the laws in WA.
 
Pandabear930 said:
Hi,
I have seen the last update to these forums was some time ago. So I was wondering if there has been any updates to the laws in WA.
Click to expand...

Yep you can't do f-all in Perth without copping a fine.. Soon breathing without a permit will attract a $500 penalty notice.
 
Pandabear930 said:
Hi,
I have seen the last update to these forums was some time ago. So I was wondering if there has been any updates to the laws in WA.
Click to expand...
As far as the Prostitution Act is concerned, the short answer is 'no'.
(The long answer is that section 116 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Amendment Act 2018 changed the definition of 'registered nurse' in section 29(7) of the Prostitution Act, but I suspect that isn't the kind of thing you were talking about!)
 
Does anyone know good links and resources about sex worker laws in WA?
I'd like to think it is possible to elicit change by discussing amendments.
 
sircurious said:
Attached is the current act regarding prostitution in WA:
The link is broken, so taken down.
Click to expand...
I'm interested to know, particularly from WL's, what legal changes they would like to see; whether it's in this Act, or others such as Discrimination Act, Workers rights, etc.

Thoughts??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Smithl said:
I'm interested to know, particularly from WL's, what legal changes they would like to see; whether it's in this Act, or others such as Discrimination Act, Workers rights, etc.

Thoughts??
Click to expand...
WL's might give their thoughts, but you have to remember that the current McGowan Government has a sizeable majority in both the Legislative Assembly & Council, so unless its on their agenda to change anything in the next three years, it will just be a wish list.
 
sircurious said:
WL's might give their thoughts, but you have to remember that the current McGowan Government has a sizeable majority in both the Legislative Assembly & Council, so unless its on their agenda to change anything in the next three years, it will just be a wish list.
Click to expand...
Yes, it may be a wish list, yet everything starts with ideas and dialogues.
 
I just posted the below on another thread then noticed this thread, BUT I* have never seen mentioned here another risk under GST law: Anybody (including a nasty ex-customer) paying a supplier can demand a tax invoice that includes the supplier's true name and ABN, under s29.70(2) of the GST Act.

COPIED FROM ELSEWHERE:

The version of the Act at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/wa/consol_act/pa2000205/ if you scroll to the bottom of this page and download the RTF may be easier. Some sections have been amended since the original Act, but not these sections:

"4. Prostitution
When this Act refers to prostitution it means prostitution in which payment is consideration for the sexual stimulation of a person (the client) by means of physical contact between the client and another person (the prostitute), or between either of them and anything controlled by or emanating from the other, and it is irrelevant whether payment is in money or any other form. [So strap-ons, controlling toys over the internet are included, free rent and Bitcoin are included.]
...

5. Seeking prostitute in or in view or within hearing of public place
(1) A person who, in or in the view or within hearing of a public place, seeks another person to act as a prostitute commits an offence under this subsection.
...
(3) (a) if it is a simple offence, to imprisonment for 2 years;
...
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person (in this section called the offender) seeks another person to act as a prostitute if the offender —
(a) invites or requests another person to act as a prostitute; or
...
(5) It makes no difference —
...
(b) whether or not a particular person is sought to act as a prostitute;
[So phoning brothel while sitting visibly in your car is an offence.]

...
7. Seeking to induce person to act as prostitute
(1) A person is not to —
...
(e) do anything else, or refrain from doing anything,
with the intention of inducing another person who is not a child to act, or continue to act, as a prostitute.
(2) An offence under subsection (1) is a crime.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
[Explains why WA Brothels have wierd business structures to ensure they don't have employer relationships with prostitutes.]

...
8. Prophylactic to be used
It is an offence for a person to engage in an act of prostitution without using a prophylactic that is appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from one person to another.
Penalty: $5 000." [So it's an offence doing a paid blowjob without a condom]

BUT: Nothing in this Act makes it illegal doing the act in view of a public place, because that law's elsewhere.

Most of the Act gives police special powers to search for and prosecute child or involuntary prostitution. Police often don't need warrants, making it reasonable for brothels to have no documentation of prostitutes' real names or identities when they keep individual transactions low enough to avoid GST record keeping issues*.

* General advice only. I am not a lawyer. I am not your accountant.
 
One of the big problems with reforming the laws around sex work in WA is that 'reformers' have always been keen to do more than just decriminalise prostitution. They have tried to punish clients, or exile sex-work out into manufacturing areas, or otherwise stigmatise it. I think a lot could be achieved just by removing a few sections (or parts of sections) in the current law. Here are a few simple changes I would like to see, in order of importance.

Repeal section 190 of the Criminal Code
This section makes it an offence for anyone (apart from the actual prostitute, though even that isn’t clear) to receive as income money they know comes from prostitution. This includes the owner and/or tenant of the place of prostitution, and people managing or assisting at that place, e.g. receptionists. (And the spouse, partner, aged parent or even possibly the child of a prostitute if they don’t have any income of their own.)

Repeal section 9 of the Prostitution Act
This section makes it an offence to advertise to recruit sex workers and other employees for a brothel, such as security guards, receptionists and cleaners.

Amend s191(2) of the Criminal Code
Section 191(1) makes it an offence to ‘procure’ someone to be a prostitute (which seems to mean persuade rather than just encourage). Subsection (2) says it is no defence that the person procured consented. It should be amended to read that it IS a defence that they consented, or ‘procure’ should be changed to ‘coerce’.

Repeal section 10 of the Prostitution Act
This section makes it illegal to accept a commercial sponsorship payment from a sex-worker or sex-provider business.
 
Last edited:
Plumage said:
One of the big problems with reforming the laws around sex work in WA is that 'reformers' have always been keen to do more than just decriminalise prostitution. They have tried to punish clients, or exile sex-work out into manufacturing areas, or otherwise stigmatise it. I think a lot could be achieved just by removing a few sections (or parts of sections) in the current law. Here are a few simple changes I would like to see, in order of importance.

Repeal section 190 of the Criminal Code.
This section makes it an offence for anyone (apart from the actual prostitute, though even that isn’t clear) to receive as income money they know comes from prostitution. This includes the owner and/or tenant of the place of prostitution, and people managing or assisting at that place, e.g. receptionists. (And the spouse, partner, aged parent or even possibly the child of a prostitute if they don’t have any income of their own.)

Repeal section 9 of the Prostitution Act
This section makes it an offence to advertise to recruit sex workers and other employees for a brothel, such as security guards, receptionists and cleaners.

Amend s191(2) of the Criminal Code
Section 191(1) makes it an offence to ‘procure’ someone to be a prostitute (which seems to mean persuade rather than just encourage). Subsection (2) says it is no defence that the person procured consented. It should be amended to read that it IS a defence that they consented, or ‘procure’ should be changed to ‘coerce’.

Repeal section 10 of the Prostitution Act
This section makes it illegal to accept a commercial sponsorship payment from a sex-worker or sex-provider business.
Click to expand...
These changes would make sense.
The stigma does need to be addressed through awareness and discussion.
 
Since 2000 we have heard nothing to indicate that the government are relooking at the issue. Decrimalisation is the best avenue like NSW ACT NT & Vic already have. I believe QLD are looking at decrimilation at the moment.
This is simply saying it was never illegal in the first place. I have sucessfully stopped two very bad bills, we did have a great one 20 years ago with the female premier but WA INC got in the way and it was shelved..
 
Mrs Langtrees said:
Since 2000 we have heard nothing to indicate that the government are relooking at the issue. Decrimalisation is the best avenue like NSW ACT NT & Vic already have. I believe QLD are looking at decrimilation at the moment.
This is simply saying it was never illegal in the first place. I have sucessfully stopped two very bad bills, we did have a great one 20 years ago with the female premier but WA INC got in the way and it was shelved..
Click to expand...
Does decriminalisation in those various states and territories look the same? I wonder what best practice would look like for WA?

I feel it's an important discussion to have since decriminalisation will happen eventually
 
There are different approaches in different states. The most recent, and the most thorough, decriminalisation has taken place in Victoria.

For example, the Victorians have decriminalised street work, but they have placed some limits on the areas sex-workers can work in public.

At the moment, section 6 of the WA Prostitution Act outlaws streetwork. But if section 6 were removed, that does NOT mean that we would have 'street-walkers' everywhere. That is because the WA Local Government Act 1995 authorises councils to control all forms of street trading though a licencing scheme. It is unlikely any Councils would give sex-workers a permit to trade in their streets and other public places.

But at least anyone who tried to operate without a permit would be subject only to a fine, typically of around $500 for a first offence, not to one year in gaol, which is the penalty under s 6 of the Prostitution ACT.

So decriminalising street-work here would not change much in practical terms. On the one hand it would help de-stigmatise sex-work, if only symbolically. On the other hand, if a repeal of section 6 was included in a general law to decriminalise sex-work, it would likely lead to (ill-founded) alarm from resident groups and make the whole thing harder to pass. I'd be inclined to leave it alone.

The Victorian law has also done away with the legal requirement for condoms. The argument was that sex-workers and their clients should not be subject to restrictions that ordinary citizens are not subject to when they have sex together. I'm not sure I agree with that. (1) People selling food to the public are held to higher health-standards than people cooking at home. (2) There is enough pressure from clients already to have unsafe sex without giving the impression they now have a right to it. I don't know though. I kind of feel a bit guilty about thinking this way. Like maybe I have "internalised the stigma against sex-work", and that sex-workers could be relied on the continue to be sensible and vigilant about STIs without the need to threaten them with criminal charges.
 
Last edited:
On the latter point, the difference between not having a legal requirement for condoms and provision of safe food is that we are dealing with consenting adults, as with any relationship between two (or more) people. With food, customers generally are not in a position to assess the risks or give consent to 'unsafe' food practices. So I think the Victorian change gets a tick for treating us like adults.
 
Plumage said:
There are different approaches in different states. The most recent, and the most thorough, decriminalisation has taken place in Victoria.

For example, the Victorians have decriminalised street work, but they have placed some limits on the areas sex-workers can work in public.

At the moment, section 6 of the WA Prostitution Act outlaws streetwork. But if section 6 were removed, that does NOT mean that we would have 'street-walkers' everywhere. That is because the WA Local Government Act 1995 authorises councils to control all forms of street trading though a licencing scheme. It is unlikely any Councils would give sex-workers a permit to trade in their streets and other public places.

But at least anyone who tried to operate without a permit would be subject only to a fine, typically of around $500 for a first offence, not to one year in gaol, which is the penalty under s 6 of the Prostitution ACT.

So decriminalising street-work here would not change much in practical terms. On the one hand it would help de-stigmatise sex-work, if only symbolically. On the other hand, if a repeal of section 6 was included in a general law to decriminalise sex-work, it would likely lead to (ill-founded) alarm from resident groups and make the whole thing harder to pass. I'd be inclined to leave it alone.

The Victorian law has also done away with the legal requirement for condoms. The argument was that sex-workers and their clients should not be subject to restrictions that ordinary citizens are not subject to when they have sex together. I'm not sure I agree with that. (1) People selling food to the public are held to a higher health-standards than people cooking at home. (2) There is enough pressure from clients already to have unsafe sex without the giving the impression they now have a right to it. I don't know though. I kind of feel a bit guilty about thinking this way. Like maybe I have "internalised the stigma against sex-work", and that sex-workers could be relied on the continue to be sensible and vigilant about STIs without the need to threaten them with criminal charges.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to get feedback from Victorian WL's about the changes and their lived experience.

The option of not using condoms could be seen as a step back in regards to personal health and the overall public health message, particularly at decision time in the throes of passion.
 
Not requiring condoms may clash with occupational health and safety law (which is far wider than just applying to "employees") and public health concerns. Public health concerns would be politically far more difficult to overcome than in 2019.
 
John Smithl said:
Does anyone know good links and resources about sex worker laws in WA?
I'd like to think it is possible to elicit change by discussing amendments.
Click to expand...
Scarlet allowance is helpful or I'm currently reading the WA prostitution act 2000 there's amendments 2007 + 2011
I also loved the wage theft article by Lana from magenta
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top