4 minute read
Letter to the editor: Decriminalisation
Endnotes 1 Section 4(1)(l) and section 5(10)(g) for land in the DRA. 2 See The South Australian Government Gazette, 26
June 1975, p 2475. In effect land adjacent to the Adelaide metropolitan area and adjacent to
Advertisement
Mount Gambier. 3 Section 2(1) definition of land used for primary production. 4 Section 2(1) definition of business of primary production. 5 In this article this requirement is described as the engagement requirement. 6 Subject to the engagement requirement. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Section 5(13). 14 Section 5(13). 15 There are then further definitions of a domestic partner, close personal relationship and a close relative in section 5(13). 16 [2015] SASCFC 151 sub nom T&S Liapis Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Taxation [2015] SASC 63. 17 [2015] SASC 63 [172]. 18 Ibid [151]. 19 [2015] SASC 63 [152]-[153]; [2015] SASCFC 151 [36]. 20 [2015] SASCFC 151 [36]. 21 There has been considerable debate as to what full time meant. At one time the Commissioner appeared to require about 32 hours per week. It is unclear whether the Commissioner still uses that criterion. 22 [2015] SASC 63 [182] and [186]; [2015] SASCFC 151 [39]. 23 [2021] SASCA [58]. 24 The Queensland activities were not regarded as relevant. 25 Ibid [264], [270] and [273]. 26 Ibid [356], [367] and [367]. 27 Ibid [368]. 28 Ibid [250]. 29 Commissioner of State Taxation v Takhar [2021]
SASCA [58]. 30 (1980) 12 ATR 7, 11. 31 (2017) 105 ATR 11 32 Sections 2(1), 5(10)(g) and 5(13). 33 [2021] SASCA [58]. 34 Ibid [60]-[61]. 35 Ibid [66]. 36 Ibid [67]. 37 Ibid [70]. 38 Ibid [76]. 39 Ibid [75]. 40 Ibid [81]-[82]. 41 Ibid [87]. 42 Ibid [88]-[93]. 43 Ibid [94]-[107]. 44 The only activity undertaken on the Burton land. 45 Ibid v[108]-[119]. This ignores the additional question raised prior to the hearing as to whether this issue had been raised as a distinct issue at the trial and whether the Commissioner should be given leave to amend the notice of appeal to include as a ground of appeal that further issue. 46 Ibid [93]. 47 See definition of “land used for the business of primary production” in section 2(1). 48 See definition of “relevant business” in section 5(13). 49 [2021] SASCA [58] [101]-[102]. 50 Ibid [102]-[104]. 51 Ibid [106]. 52 Ibid [107]. 53 Ibid [117]. 54 Ibid [119].
Dear Editor
In the President’s letter dated 6 May 2021 addressed to the Parliamentary Select Committee it is asserted that the Women Lawyers Committee “informs the Society’s views” in respect of the sex work reform bill.
In over thirty years of legal practice, I have on occasion acted for prostituted women and brothel owners. I have an understanding of the activities and business models. Whilst I support the decriminalisation of prostitution I do not support legalisation of brothels. There is an alternative route to reform that decriminalises prostitution, prohibits exploitation by pimps and discourages commodification of women. If combined with support services, it can lead to an improvement in wellbeing and opportunity for women who have resorted to prostitution due to a lack of alternative choices.
Associate Professor Joanna Howe of the University of Adelaide has provided a detailed submission to the Select Committee. I commend this submission to you all.
The members of the Women Lawyers Committee are entitled to their views, but they do not represent mine. In this matter I consider their viewpoint poorly considered. Yours sincerely
Loretta Polson
Further suggested reading: • Paid for, my journey through
Prostitution by Rachel Moran • Being & Being Bought: Prostitution,
Surrogacy and The Split Self by Kajsa Ekman • Pimp State; Sex, Money & The Future of Equality by Kat Banyard • The Pimping of Prostitution:
Abolishing the Sex Worker Myth by Julie Bindel
EDITOR’S NOTE:
In 2014, the Women Lawyers Committee asked the Council of the Law Society to consider whether it should take a position on the decriminalisation of sex work. Following consultation with Members of the Society and Council deliberations on the issue, the Council of the Society, on a vote of 15-5 at its February 2016 meeting, resolved to support full decriminalisation of sex work in South Australia.
Since then, the Society has provided submissions on three separate Bills to decriminalise sex work. In preparing those submissions, the Society has consulted with the Women Lawyers Committee, Industrial Relations Committee, Criminal Law Committee, and Human Rights Committee.
With regards to proposed legislation, the Society’s submission process involves referring Bills out to Committees that have interest and expertise in areas of law relating to the Bill in question, and the Society also invites all Members to comment on Bills. Members are encouraged to consult the weekly InBrief newsletter every Thursday to see which submissions the Society are currently working on. B
