Well if this Bill gets passed it will be the end of touring ladies visiting WA as they wont be able to get a licence (non resident of WA) and it also looks like it will impact very heavily on private workers offering incalls.
I couldnt find in the proposed bill where outcall escorts are mentioned? I assume they will still need to be licenced, but as the premises where business takes place varies, it makes getting planning approval rather difficult?
Amy
I had a quick look through the summary of key points and I, too, latched onto the same 3 points. Whilst relaxing with a pina colada this afternoon (*hic*), a couple of thoughts went through my mind.
1. I would suggest that the industry consider making a submission to amend clause 48 by adding, after the words "...ordinarily resident in Western Australia", the following words "....or who have a current licence issued by another jurisdiction within Australia that is similar to a licence that would be issued by this jurisdiction."
If the intent of the Bill is "...to impose a strong regulatory and enforcement framework...", then if a WL has already been vetted in another jurisdiction, then why re-invent the wheel. When I was in the public service regulating companies (prior to ASIC), we had an undertaking with other states that allowed an interstate company to trade in WA without having to go through all the paperwork that was required when that company was first set up in the other state. Subject to lodging an application and a copy of that company's current certificate, that interstate company could then trade in WA. Adding the above wording would be a similar concept.
So, if a WL has already been certified in another jurisdcition, then including those extra words would be akin to recognising that WL in WA even if that WL didnt live in WA.
2. I'd be surprised if the Bill intends to wipe out an escort business, so how would it be licensed? If I may use Ruby's as an example, it would seem to me that Ruby's "premises" (ie where it operates from by taking calls, making bookings, scheduling etc) would need to be licenced even though the escort would be undertaking the "actual physical activity" elsewhere.
If the above interpretation is correct, then how does a private escort comply? Obviously the devil will be in the detail, however, I suspect that the regulatory agency would want the private escort's "premises" as the licensed premises. If the escort's premises was her home, then it appears that she will be caught out. However, what if her "proposed licensed premises" was, say, at a place like Ruby's? Still staying a private escort, if the escort and Ruby's came to an agreement whereby Ruby's (subject to the payment of an admin fee) would act as a service company to the escort (NOT as the escort's employer). The escort would still set her own fees (for which the client would pay the escort) and the escort would then pay Ruby's who would issue the escort an invoice for acting as the escort's service company.
Of course, this model would see that the escort's revenue would reduce due to having to pay Ruby's invoice. Assuming that this invoice would be classed as a business cost then, in theory, that invoice should be considered a tax deduction.
3. I'm unsure as to what the arrangement is between a WL and a parlour, eg Langtrees. For example, is it that of an employee/employer or is it something else? If it is that of an employee/employer, then a client entering Langtrees enters into a contractual arrangement (a legal relationship) with Langtrees and not with the WL for that WL's services. In other words, the client pays Langtrees the fee (as set by Langtrees) and Langtrees pays the WL a "salary".
However, what if the WL is a sole trader who "rents" space from Langtrees and pays for her share of costs (eg, towels, sheets, cleaning, condoms etc etc) to Langtrees in much the same way as I've mentioned in the Ruby's scenario above? In this instance, it would seem to me that the legal relationship would then be between the client and the WL. The WL would set her own fees and pay Langtrees an admin fee by way of an invoice.
Further, the WL could then be entitled to be classed as providing a "personal services business", refer to the link for more details (
Personal services business self assessment checklist ). In theory, this could also apply in the case of a private WL provided that the private WL nominated Langtrees (or other parlours if the private WL was to work out of multiple premises).
Regardless if the above option was worth a more detailed look or not, it also seems to me that private WLs are going to be prevented from "working from home" and would have to use premises that complied with the Bill's criteria.
At end of the day, the above are just my personal thoughts to perhaps help in looking at the issues or possible options. Having said that, the above should in no way been seen to be something that is doable or, indeed, practicable. I have just jotted my thoughts as this wont be the first time a government has introduced laws that make life difficult for hard working honest people who are just trying to make a living.
Fudd
ps: to the management of Ruby's & Langtrees, please note that reference to your businesses was for illustration purposes only and was not in any way intended to cause any inconvenience.
ccasion14