Alternative Law Journal
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Alternative Law Journal |
|
Brian Simpson[*]
In early January a well known Adelaide brothel operator, Stormy Summers, announced that she would stand as a candidate for Lord Mayor in the council elections in May. This announcement sparked immediate local and international interest with her candidacy being compared with that of Italian porn star Ilona ‘Cicciolina’ Staller who successfully stood for office in that country in 1987. Since then Stormy Summers’ candidacy has been presented as one which is concerned for the marginalised in Adelaide. But what has been generally lacking in the media is any critical analysis of what indeed Ms Summers is standing for and how her campaign relates to a range of Prostitution Bills which are to be debated by State parliament in its next session.
On 8 January 2000 the Advertiser reported the candidacy of Stormy Summers in terms which indicated that she was attempting to appeal to a constituency often forgotten in local government elections (p.7):
Controversial madam Stormy Summers wants to legalise prostitution in the city and establish shelters for street kids.
She says that if she becomes lord mayor all prostitutes will work in ‘safe houses’ where their health and wellbeing is assured.
Ms Summers also intends to put roofs over the heads of all street kids and boost support and outreach for the elderly.
But although she expressed concern for the elderly and street kids in declaring herself a candidate it was also reported (in the same article) that she was principally standing to boost the prospects of prostitution law reform in the State.
‘No-one should be on any misunderstanding about this’, Ms Summers said, ‘I am a single-issue candidate for Lord Mayor of Adelaide. I make no apology for this. One of the few social issues that wasn’t effectively dealt with in the 1970s was the reform of the sex industry in South Australia.’
‘Unfortunately, the lily-livered crop of politicians that we had in the 1980s failed to come to grips with this issue.’
The same article reports that in 1994 Ms Summers established the Sex Reform Association to lobby for prostitution law reform. Clearly, her campaign announcement had much to do with her desire to legalise the industry within which her business interests lie.
One of the enduring symbols of the 1990s that continues is that politicians at all levels must embrace the ‘battler’. And although Ms Summers’ reference to street kids and the elderly is not the ‘battler’ with which many politicians identify, it does nevertheless borrow heavily from this political strategy. Her appeal to a constituency that supports the underdog has definitely struck a chord in Adelaide. While Ms Summers was appearing on a popular morning radio show in Adelaide one caller indicated that in her view Ms Summers understood the ordinary person better than most people. The Local Government Minister, Mark Brindal, reiterated these views (Advertiser, 10 January 2000, p.11).
The Minister acknowledged that he was a friend of Ms Summers and also a well-known supporter of prostitution law reform. Changes to the Local Government Act brought in by the government have allowed Ms Summers to stand as a Lord Mayoral candidate. It was previously necessary to serve on a Council for 12 months. The Advertiser (10 January 2000, p.11) reported:
Mr Brindal said the reforms were ‘a deliberate decision by the Liberal Government to break the club atmosphere of local government’.
‘[Ms Summers] is the first, I hope, of an increase of high-profile people who can’t be bothered spending five or six years sitting on a council bench, dutifully opening letters and being everything the city manager wants them to be,’ Mr Brindal said.
Of course, this also indicates a certain disdain for the calibre of current local politicians. Needless to say, these comments sparked the ire of some current councillors. Yet inexperience is not what the Summers’ campaign has been built on. She has presented as a candidate hardened by the experience of struggling for many years to achieve prostitution law reform. The City Messenger (9 January 2000, p.5) reported:
After five failed attempts to support private members’ bills to legalise prostitution, Ms Summers knows a lot about politics.
‘I’ve always liked politics and criminal law because of the business I am in, and being involved in politics, all the bills over the years and sitting in the Stranger’s Gallery’, she says.
There has been little media analysis of the Summers campaign, with the possible exception of some aspects of its coverage by the local newspaper, the City Messenger. While the novelty value of the campaign has been reported, the dearth of media outlets in this city has meant that deeper understandings of what is happening have been bypassed.
Prostitution law reform has been on the political agenda for many years in South Australia but recent attempts to decriminalise the activity have failed. Four Bills will be debated by parliament in April 2000. These Bills range from prohibition to legalisation. The fact that the Bills canvass all options is itself a comment on the extent to which community debate has been moribund around the sex industry. Clearly, most politicians are cautious of being too vocal on the need to reform prostitution laws for fear of an electoral backlash from a perceived conservative electorate. As a result there is no consensus about the nature of any reform of the laws — or if any at all should occur.
In this context the Summers’ campaign must be applauded. If nothing else, it has put on the centre of the political stage the whole issue of law reform in an area that sadly needs it. Adelaide has a thriving sex industry and its illegal status cannot be seriously argued as being beneficial for sex worker, client or the community at large. The fact that she has chosen to raise this issue through standing for Lord Mayor of the City Council, which has little jurisdiction over such matters, raises separate issues.
About 20% of all brothels are said to be in the CBD area (City Messenger, 2 February 2000, p.4) — thus it could be argued that a sizeable proportion of the sex industry exists within the Adelaide City Council’s boundaries. But apart from this geographic fact the political reality is that except for symbolic statements there is precious little the Council can do to legalise prostitution. So why is Stormy Summers standing as a Lord Mayoral candidate on a prostitution law reform platform? There are a number of possible explanations.
Although Ms Summers has expressed her concern with the needs of street kids and the elderly, the extent of her understanding of issues such as drug abuse and aged care has not been established. Certainly when she was guest of a popular morning radio show last month her explanations of what was needed to address drug use and the homelessness of young people seemed ill considered and lacking in substance. Clearly her main agenda is to have prostitution legalised. But no-one has asked whether her broader agenda is good policy. Is the Summers’ campaign another example of the cult of personality driving events more so than consideration of whether the particular office sought is relevant for the proposed political agenda?
Another consideration is the extent to which Summers stands to gain from the legalisation of prostitution. One report stated:
Lord mayoral candidate Stormy Summers will have a busy year if she achieves the big double: winning the city election in May and having prostitution legalised by State Parliament in April. The latter possibility has Ms Summers particularly excited, with plans to franchise her bordellos. She told our reporter Thea Williams: ‘My name is worth $1million now. I would be worth $5 million if it [the industry] is legalised. I would franchise it like Hungry Jack’s or McDonald’s.’ [City Messenger, 2 February 2000, p.1]
This was reported at the same time as claims that the possible legalisation of prostitution in South Australia would result in interstate brothel owners flooding into South Australia (City Messenger, 2 February 2000, p.5).
Such reports raise some questions about the extent to which current brothel owners, in seeking law reform in this area, are more concerned about increasing their business turnover than they are about the rights of the battler. The reported split in the sex industry also raises concerns over whether prostitution should be licensed or regulated. One part of the industry favours licensing while the other opts for regulation only. In South Australia these two sides are represented by the Sex Reform Association, which supports licensing, and by the Sex Industry Network, which supports regulation (The following quotes are sourced to the City Messenger, 2 February 2000, p.5).
The Sex Reform Association (SRA) is chaired by Stormy Summers. Licensing is supported by her organisation as she claims it ‘is the only way owners can be vetted’ She argues:
It is only through stricter licensing, not loose regulation, that brothels can be kept in areas away from residents, schools and churches … Anything less means decriminalisation and ‘open slather’, allowing for street workers and brothels in inappropriate areas.
The Sex Industry Network takes an opposing stance:
SIN [Sex Industry Network] spokeswoman Serena Mawulisa says regulation is better than ‘people having to go through an absolutely bureaucratic licensing system to open a parlor’.
The Victorian experience has shown licensing favours big business such as the Daily Planet (now on the stock exchange), not individuals or collectives who might want to work from home.
Licensing forces businesses into light industrial and commercial areas where small operators or individuals could not afford premises.
‘South Australia has a tradition of a small cottage sex industry. We would like to preserve it. It is better for sex workers. They have greater control over their occupational life.’
The community would be protected because a sex business could not be within 200 metres of a church, a school or where children might congregate.
Clearly, these two positions show that the direction of prostitution law reform in South Australia is contested. It is not simply the case that Stormy Summers represents the progressive stance on the matter. Certainly, she has a significant financial interest in the outcome of the law reform process on her own admission, yet her campaign is pitched to the suggestion that she represents the battler. The politics of prostitution law reform is far more complex than that. The City Messenger article concludes:
There is suspicion between the SRA and SIN.
The SRA suggest SIN is a government-funded health organisation and not a political advocate for workers. SIN suggests the SRA represents owners with big business interests.
This is not the perspective one gains from much of the reporting of the Stormy Summers campaign to date.
As mentioned earlier, there are four Bills currently before parliament. One, the Summary Offences (Prostitution) Amendment Bill, prohibits prostitution. The other three Bills — the Prostitution (Regulation) Bill, the Prostitution (Licensing) Bill and the Prostitution (Registration) Bill — all seek to permit prostitution in various ways as their names suggest. But all Bills share a common provision with respect to the siting of brothels. One of the major criticisms of SIN with respect to the ability of small operators to run brothels is that they are often forced out to light industrial and commercial areas where property prices keep out small operators. Each of the three Bills, which would legalise prostitution in various ways, has the following provision:
(1) A development involving the establishment of a brothel or use of premises is unlawful unless approved by the Development Assessment Commission.
(2)The Development Assessment Commission is not to approve a development involving the establishment of a brothel or use of premises as a brothel if —
(a) the part of a local government area in which the premises are, or are to be, situated —
(i) is zoned or set apart under the Development Plan for residential use; or
(ii) is a part of the local government area in which residential use is, according to the Development Plan, to be encouraged; or
(b) the premises are situated within 200 metres of a school or other place used for the education, care or recreation of children, a church or other place of worship or a community centre; or
(c) the premises would have more than 8 rooms available for the provision of sexual services; or
(d) in the opinion of the Development Assessment Commission the premises would, in conjunction with other brothels in the area, tend to establish a red light district ie an inappropriately high concentration of brothels in the same area; or
(e) approval would not be consistent with criteria prescribed by the regulations. [Prostitution (Regulation) Bill 1999, cl.10; Prostitution (Licensing) Bill 1999, cl.24; Prostitution (Registration) Bill 1999, cl.20]
By excluding brothels from residential areas — and areas in which residential use is to be encouraged — the proposed laws may well raise the amount of capital required to operate a brothel through pushing brothels into industrial and commercial areas where property prices are higher. This might do what SIN are in fear of — crush the cottage sex industry. In such a climate large brothel owners may well capture the market and cash in on the new laws. In this way the proposed laws may plan out certain types of brothels and encourage the establishment of brothels backed by capital.
It may be asked whether this degree of planning is really required with this cost attached to it. SIN support the requirement that brothels be located more than 200 metres from schools, churches and other places where children congregate (although why a brothel 195 metres away is a problem and one 205 metres is not defeats reason). What is really being objected to here by planning brothels out of residential areas? Presumably it is not the sexual activity itself, as one suspects — although I have no direct evidence — that sexual activity does take place within suburban residential Adelaide. If it is the noise levels which such premises generate through increased traffic then I do have some evidence (I lived two doors away once from an illegal brothel) that they can be less noisy than the tenants who subsequently occupy the premises.
Of course, as with all such matters the permitted location of brothels has more to do with political sensitivities than with any rational concern about appropriate land use. When another illegal brothel opened in the street where I used to live (in a reasonably affluent suburb of Adelaide) one resident had to distribute pamphlets to other residents to inform them of its presence. For the most part I would suggest that most residents were as much concerned with whether number 24 had illicit sex taking place inside as whether any other premises in the street was the site of tax evasion or stamp collecting. As for increased traffic, the street had ample parking and certainly, being a small operation, there would have been limited increase in traffic flows in any case.
Perhaps there are other considerations that might be factored into the law to address the proper siting of brothels than a blanket prohibition on their locating in residential areas. After all, the consequences of not permitting their location in such areas may be the dominance of the legitimate sex industry by big business, the creation of de facto red light areas (in spite of the proposed laws’ attempts to control that occurring) and the continuance of some illegal brothels in residential areas.
This article has attempted to suggest that behind the ‘Stormy for Mayor’ campaign lies a contested area with respect to prostitution law reform in South Australia. It is of some concern that her campaign has not been more carefully analysed by the media as it raises questions about:
• the extent to which politics at all levels is now being driven by the cult of personality rather than by any real attempt to select candidates who have a solid grasp of the social issues relating to the office to which they aspire; and
• the extent to which candidates are able to invoke certain images to support their objectives.
Of greater concern is the degree to which such campaigns often mask other possible motives for the seeking of political office. In the case of prostitution law reform in South Australia it is argued that there is much at stake in the months to come as parliament debates the various Bills before it. It will be interesting to see whether the debate rises above slogans on t-shirts and deals with the various financial, health and social interests the players all have.
[*] Brian Simpson teaches Legal Studies at Flinders University of South Australia.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2000/31.html