❓ The Attorney General outlines local government's role in policing prostitution, focusing on brothel location approval and regulation, criticising the previous government's approach and highlighting the current government's commitment to executive oversight.
AnsweredQoN 773Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
prostitution — attorney general’s statement
I refer to the Attorney General’s ministerial statement outlining the government’s proposed model for the effective policing of prostitution. Can the Attorney General provide further details on the intended role of local government in this policing model? Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer to the Attorney General’s ministerial statement outlining the government’s proposed model for the effective policing of prostitution. Can the Attorney General provide further details on the intended role of local government in this policing model? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for her question. Local government always has a role to play in schemes such as this one, which is a very important scheme. Two issues go to local government’s role. The first is what say a local government will have in where a brothel might be located; that is, of course, a brothel that is properly licensed and makes an application to operate in a zone where prostitution is permissible. The second issue is what role local government would play in regulating and oversighting an operational brothel and what role it would play in policing and shutting down an unlawful brothel. With respect to some of the comments that the member for Mindarie made, we are very happy to be criticised on the model, but everyone should understand precisely what it is. During the election we promised that the executive government, through a minister or ministers, would have the ultimate say in where a lawful brothel would be located. The member for Mindarie’s point was that the Minister for Planning already has a veto power. That may be true about general scheme amendments and things of that nature, but for individual businesses, the Minister for Planning will have the ultimate power of veto over any single application. That is quite an extraordinary power over individual businesses. Of course, the Minister for Racing and Gaming will have the ultimate discretion as to whether a licence is issued at all. I know that we have kept our promise that the final decision as to whether and where a brothel can operate would be in the hands of the executive government because I approached the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Racing and Gaming and asked them to take final responsibility. The extraordinary keenness they showed at having that kind of power spoke volumes to me about the fact that it was a real power. The executive government will have the ultimate responsibility about where a lawful prostitution business can be placed. As to the second issue with respect to policing, local government was very, very angry about the 2008 piece of legislation that members opposite intended to make law. The City of Stirling councillors described the former government’s 2008 law as unworkable; they said that the Labor government had put the problem into the too-hard basket. The Mayor of Fremantle described the laws as a serious cost-shifting exercise. The Mayor of Kalgoorlie described the small owner-operated brothel exemptions as smacking of hypocrisy, and totally wrong and out of step with the community. The reason that local government was angry had nothing to do with planning, but everything to do with policing and regulation. Under the law that members opposite wanted to pass and that we have stopped, a two-person brothel would not have been contrary — Mr J.N. Hyde : It is not a brothel. You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for her question. Local government always has a role to play in schemes such as this one, which is a very important scheme. Two issues go to local government’s role. The first is what say a local government will have in where a brothel might be located; that is, of course, a brothel that is properly licensed and makes an application to operate in a zone where prostitution is permissible. The second issue is what role local government would play in regulating and oversighting an operational brothel and what role it would play in policing and shutting down an unlawful brothel. With respect to some of the comments that the member for Mindarie made, we are very happy to be criticised on the model, but everyone should understand precisely what it is. During the election we promised that the executive government, through a minister or ministers, would have the ultimate say in where a lawful brothel would be located. The member for Mindarie’s point was that the Minister for Planning already has a veto power. That may be true about general scheme amendments and things of that nature, but for individual businesses, the Minister for Planning will have the ultimate power of veto over any single application. That is quite an extraordinary power over individual businesses. Of course, the Minister for Racing and Gaming will have the ultimate discretion as to whether a licence is issued at all. I know that we have kept our promise that the final decision as to whether and where a brothel can operate would be in the hands of the executive government because I approached the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Racing and Gaming and asked them to take final responsibility. The extraordinary keenness they showed at having that kind of power spoke volumes to me about the fact that it was a real power. The executive government will have the ultimate responsibility about where a lawful prostitution business can be placed. As to the second issue with respect to policing, local government was very, very angry about the 2008 piece of legislation that members opposite intended to make law. The City of Stirling councillors described the former government’s 2008 law as unworkable; they said that the Labor government had put the problem into the too-hard basket. The Mayor of Fremantle described the laws as a serious cost-shifting exercise. The Mayor of Kalgoorlie described the small owner-operated brothel exemptions as smacking of hypocrisy, and totally wrong and out of step with the community. The reason that local government was angry had nothing to do with planning, but everything to do with policing and regulation. Under the law that members opposite wanted to pass and that we have stopped, a two-person brothel would not have been contrary — Mr J.N. Hyde : It is not a brothel. You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
I thank the member for her question. Local government always has a role to play in schemes such as this one, which is a very important scheme. Two issues go to local government’s role. The first is what say a local government will have in where a brothel might be located; that is, of course, a brothel that is properly licensed and makes an application to operate in a zone where prostitution is permissible. The second issue is what role local government would play in regulating and oversighting an operational brothel and what role it would play in policing and shutting down an unlawful brothel. With respect to some of the comments that the member for Mindarie made, we are very happy to be criticised on the model, but everyone should understand precisely what it is. During the election we promised that the executive government, through a minister or ministers, would have the ultimate say in where a lawful brothel would be located. The member for Mindarie’s point was that the Minister for Planning already has a veto power. That may be true about general scheme amendments and things of that nature, but for individual businesses, the Minister for Planning will have the ultimate power of veto over any single application. That is quite an extraordinary power over individual businesses. Of course, the Minister for Racing and Gaming will have the ultimate discretion as to whether a licence is issued at all. I know that we have kept our promise that the final decision as to whether and where a brothel can operate would be in the hands of the executive government because I approached the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Racing and Gaming and asked them to take final responsibility. The extraordinary keenness they showed at having that kind of power spoke volumes to me about the fact that it was a real power. The executive government will have the ultimate responsibility about where a lawful prostitution business can be placed. As to the second issue with respect to policing, local government was very, very angry about the 2008 piece of legislation that members opposite intended to make law. The City of Stirling councillors described the former government’s 2008 law as unworkable; they said that the Labor government had put the problem into the too-hard basket. The Mayor of Fremantle described the laws as a serious cost-shifting exercise. The Mayor of Kalgoorlie described the small owner-operated brothel exemptions as smacking of hypocrisy, and totally wrong and out of step with the community. The reason that local government was angry had nothing to do with planning, but everything to do with policing and regulation. Under the law that members opposite wanted to pass and that we have stopped, a two-person brothel would not have been contrary — Mr J.N. Hyde : It is not a brothel. You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
As to the second issue with respect to policing, local government was very, very angry about the 2008 piece of legislation that members opposite intended to make law. The City of Stirling councillors described the former government’s 2008 law as unworkable; they said that the Labor government had put the problem into the too-hard basket. The Mayor of Fremantle described the laws as a serious cost-shifting exercise. The Mayor of Kalgoorlie described the small owner-operated brothel exemptions as smacking of hypocrisy, and totally wrong and out of step with the community. The reason that local government was angry had nothing to do with planning, but everything to do with policing and regulation. Under the law that members opposite wanted to pass and that we have stopped, a two-person brothel would not have been contrary — Mr J.N. Hyde : It is not a brothel. You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
Mr J.N. Hyde : It is not a brothel. You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for her question. Local government always has a role to play in schemes such as this one, which is a very important scheme. Two issues go to local government’s role. The first is what say a local government will have in where a brothel might be located; that is, of course, a brothel that is properly licensed and makes an application to operate in a zone where prostitution is permissible. The second issue is what role local government would play in regulating and oversighting an operational brothel and what role it would play in policing and shutting down an unlawful brothel. With respect to some of the comments that the member for Mindarie made, we are very happy to be criticised on the model, but everyone should understand precisely what it is. During the election we promised that the executive government, through a minister or ministers, would have the ultimate say in where a lawful brothel would be located. The member for Mindarie’s point was that the Minister for Planning already has a veto power. That may be true about general scheme amendments and things of that nature, but for individual businesses, the Minister for Planning will have the ultimate power of veto over any single application. That is quite an extraordinary power over individual businesses. Of course, the Minister for Racing and Gaming will have the ultimate discretion as to whether a licence is issued at all. I know that we have kept our promise that the final decision as to whether and where a brothel can operate would be in the hands of the executive government because I approached the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Racing and Gaming and asked them to take final responsibility. The extraordinary keenness they showed at having that kind of power spoke volumes to me about the fact that it was a real power. The executive government will have the ultimate responsibility about where a lawful prostitution business can be placed. As to the second issue with respect to policing, local government was very, very angry about the 2008 piece of legislation that members opposite intended to make law. The City of Stirling councillors described the former government’s 2008 law as unworkable; they said that the Labor government had put the problem into the too-hard basket. The Mayor of Fremantle described the laws as a serious cost-shifting exercise. The Mayor of Kalgoorlie described the small owner-operated brothel exemptions as smacking of hypocrisy, and totally wrong and out of step with the community. The reason that local government was angry had nothing to do with planning, but everything to do with policing and regulation. Under the law that members opposite wanted to pass and that we have stopped, a two-person brothel would not have been contrary — Mr J.N. Hyde : It is not a brothel. You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
I thank the member for her question. Local government always has a role to play in schemes such as this one, which is a very important scheme. Two issues go to local government’s role. The first is what say a local government will have in where a brothel might be located; that is, of course, a brothel that is properly licensed and makes an application to operate in a zone where prostitution is permissible. The second issue is what role local government would play in regulating and oversighting an operational brothel and what role it would play in policing and shutting down an unlawful brothel. With respect to some of the comments that the member for Mindarie made, we are very happy to be criticised on the model, but everyone should understand precisely what it is. During the election we promised that the executive government, through a minister or ministers, would have the ultimate say in where a lawful brothel would be located. The member for Mindarie’s point was that the Minister for Planning already has a veto power. That may be true about general scheme amendments and things of that nature, but for individual businesses, the Minister for Planning will have the ultimate power of veto over any single application. That is quite an extraordinary power over individual businesses. Of course, the Minister for Racing and Gaming will have the ultimate discretion as to whether a licence is issued at all. I know that we have kept our promise that the final decision as to whether and where a brothel can operate would be in the hands of the executive government because I approached the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Racing and Gaming and asked them to take final responsibility. The extraordinary keenness they showed at having that kind of power spoke volumes to me about the fact that it was a real power. The executive government will have the ultimate responsibility about where a lawful prostitution business can be placed. As to the second issue with respect to policing, local government was very, very angry about the 2008 piece of legislation that members opposite intended to make law. The City of Stirling councillors described the former government’s 2008 law as unworkable; they said that the Labor government had put the problem into the too-hard basket. The Mayor of Fremantle described the laws as a serious cost-shifting exercise. The Mayor of Kalgoorlie described the small owner-operated brothel exemptions as smacking of hypocrisy, and totally wrong and out of step with the community. The reason that local government was angry had nothing to do with planning, but everything to do with policing and regulation. Under the law that members opposite wanted to pass and that we have stopped, a two-person brothel would not have been contrary — Mr J.N. Hyde : It is not a brothel. You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
As to the second issue with respect to policing, local government was very, very angry about the 2008 piece of legislation that members opposite intended to make law. The City of Stirling councillors described the former government’s 2008 law as unworkable; they said that the Labor government had put the problem into the too-hard basket. The Mayor of Fremantle described the laws as a serious cost-shifting exercise. The Mayor of Kalgoorlie described the small owner-operated brothel exemptions as smacking of hypocrisy, and totally wrong and out of step with the community. The reason that local government was angry had nothing to do with planning, but everything to do with policing and regulation. Under the law that members opposite wanted to pass and that we have stopped, a two-person brothel would not have been contrary — Mr J.N. Hyde : It is not a brothel. You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
Mr J.N. Hyde : It is not a brothel. You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Two people who work together as prostitutes in a house is a brothel and that is the problem that members opposite entered into. A two-person brothel would not have been against the criminal law of the state. A two-person brothel would not have been against Labor’s regulatory scheme, because, in fact, there was no regulation of such micro-brothels. The only thing that could possibly be brought to bear in terms of government responsibility at any level on a two-person micro-brothel in the suburbs was the argument that it was an impermissible land use. There is a reason why local government was so angry and why residents in suburban areas were so angry; if members opposite had found themselves living next door to a two-person brothel in a suburban area, they would have rung up the police and the police would have said, “It is not illegal; it is not our problem.” They would have rung up the regulator who would have said, “It does not need to be regulated.” Finally, they would have rung up local government, which would have said, “We’d love to help, but unfortunately we are not the police force.” That is what we are legislating to stop, and that is what members opposite will need to understand and to have a position on.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.