Editorial: Prostitution law confronts hypocrisy

In the end, the wafer-thin vote of Parliament to decriminalise prostitution was probably an accurate reflection of society. The issue divides communities as, with the exception of the United Future bloc, it pitted MP against MP. On Wednesday night, it was, in Australian parlance, a case of mate against mate, with, for example, the National Party leader, Bill English, and his deputy, Roger Sowry, coming down on opposite sides of the conscience-vote fence. In the end, it was also, subject to a number of significant provisos, the right outcome.

Most fundamentally, the prostitution reform legislation assails the high degree of hypocrisy about the sex industry that pervades society. In effect, it recognises the reality of prostitution - and that the best means of preventing the exploitation of women in the industry is the introduction of a measure of control. It also accepts that if the practice is consensual, it is reasonable to ask whether this is a victimless crime. And, on that basis, whether prostitution can be a considered a criminal activity.

The devil in this legislation is, however, in the detail. Chief among the concerns must be the fear, enunciated by the Police Association, that some of the changes cannot be enforced. It is difficult, for example, to see how a law that insists brothel owners make clients use condoms, or face a $10,000 fine, can be policed. The desire to promote safe sex is laudable but the mechanism must be highly problematic. Likewise, how can the police ensure that prostitutes are practising safe sex, thereby minimising the spread of sexually transmitted diseases? Law that cannot be enforced is law that should not pass muster.

That, with the Police Association's fear that the changes will lead to organised crime running brothels, lends a special importance to the work of a review committee. Under the legislation, that committee will report to the Government in three to five years on how well the law is working and how best to improve it so there will be less entry to, and more exits from, the sex industry. The doubts surrounding the detail, and the closeness of the vote in Parliament, demand the review takes place no later than three years - and earlier if significant problems surface and prostitutes require better protection.

The passage of the bill will, henceforth, always be associated with Ashraf Choudhary, the country's first Muslim MP. If that is unfair to Tim Barnett, the law's promoter, it, nonetheless, reflects Dr Choudhary's importance in the final 60-59 vote. He, through his abstention, will be remembered as the man who effectively passed the bill. Dr Choudhary initially opposed the bill but his proxy vote was mistakenly cast in support at the time of the second reading. On Wednesday night, he could not come up with a good reason for failing to vote, saying, "That's just how I felt". In effect, he appears to have taken the easiest of options after enduring intense lobbying from both sides of the debate. Perhaps it is fitting, given Dr Choudhary's lack of resolve, that the vilification of him will be greater than if he had voted either way.

At best, the new prostitution law supplies a more honest approach to the realities of modern society. Quite reasonably, it can be seen, as Mr Barnett contends, in the continuum of social law that eschews a blind eye and instead tackles the proven harm of a practice. Thus, quite reasonably, it removes the blanket bans on activities around prostitution - such as brothel-keeping and soliciting - that are not of themselves harmful. Potential problems abound, however, in the new focus on standards, including health, safety and employment conditions. The police have warned of the possible consequences. Parliament must exercise ongoing vigilance to ensure the law is workable.