Sex industry amendment defeated in Parliament, with opponents calling result a win for sex workers

A push to ban registered sex offenders from working in Victoria’s sex and stripping industries has been voted down in State Parliament, with opponents of the proposed change hailing the result as a win for sex workers and a sign MPs were wary of reopening decriminalisation laws without broader review.

Libertarian MP David Limbrick introduced the amendment on March 19, arguing it would close what he and supporters described as a serious loophole created after Victoria decriminalised sex work in 2022.

The proposed change was narrow in scope. It would not have altered the rights of the vast majority of sex workers but would instead have imposed a blanket ban on registered sex offenders working in either the sex industry or the stripping industry.

The amendment was defeated 21 votes to 16, with Labor, the Greens, Legalise Cannabis and Animal Justice voting it down. The Liberals, Nationals, the Libertarian MP, One Nation and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers backed it, while three MPs were absent from the vote.

The failed bid follows renewed scrutiny of the issue since Docklands News reported last year on the case of registered sex offender Albino D’Souza operating a massage business from a Docklands apartment. D’Souza, who previously served jail time in Western Australia for possessing and distributing child exploitation material, was placed on the sex offender register in 2023 for a period of 15 years.

That case sparked broader concern about the fact that registered offenders can, under current Victorian law, continue working in parts of the adult industry.

Supporters of Mr Limbrick’s amendment said the change was a basic safety measure aimed only at people already found guilty, convicted and sentenced for serious sexual crimes, including rape and child sex offences.

Among them was legal expert and sex worker advocate Matthew Roberts, who said he had worked with Mr Limbrick on the proposal after months of consultation with stakeholders in the industry.

“I supported this amendment which, if passed into law, would apply a blanket ban on registered sex offenders working in the sex industry or stripping industries,” Mr Roberts said.

He said the proposal was “targeted and specific to the registered sex offenders only” and would not affect the work rights of sex workers who were not on the register.

“As a law-abiding male sex worker who is not a registered sex offender, I am comfortable with this new law,” he said.

Backers of the change argued that while police technically have powers to seek prohibition orders preventing some offenders from working in certain industries, those powers were rarely used and were too cumbersome to operate as an effective safeguard. They said just 13 prohibition orders were approved across Victoria last financial year, representing only a tiny fraction of the state’s more than 11,000 registered sex offenders.

Mr Limbrick was scathing after the vote, saying the Government and crossbench MPs who opposed the amendment had rejected a commonsense reform.

“The Government, Greens, Legalise Cannabis and Animal Justice Party voting to allow registered sex offenders to continue working in the sex industry is one of the worst judgment calls I have ever seen in my time in parliament,” he told Docklands News.

“Sex workers have a right to be outraged about this. Matthew Roberts consulted far and wide and could not find anyone who wants sex offenders in the industry.”

Mr Limbrick rejected claims that consultation had been inadequate, saying Victoria Police units, brothel owners, female and male sex workers, clients, outreach groups and mental health workers had all supported the change.

But MPs who opposed the amendment said the issue was more complex than its supporters suggested and warned against rushing in a change affecting employment rights in an industry that has only recently been decriminalised.

Labor MP Enver Erdogan said there was a “genuine need to consider how to balance the rights of individuals to engage in legitimate forms of work with the need to protect people who are accessing these services”.

“I always talk in this chamber about how employment is an important protective factor, so therefore prohibiting a registrable offender from engaging in lawful employment is potentially going to have adverse community safety outcomes, which we do not want,” he said.

Greens MP Katherine Copsey said “there are a diversity of views amongst sex work community on this issue”.

Legalise Cannabis MP Rachel Payne said stakeholders she had spoken to were concerned about the implications of singling out sex work compared with other adult personal services.

Animal Justice MP Georgie Purcell also cautioned against what she described as a rushed change of significance, saying stakeholders had raised concerns about “giving more opportunities for police intervention in an industry that has only just been decriminalised and has historically been overpoliced”.

The Victorian Government has since confirmed that a statutory review of the Sex Work Decriminalisation Act will begin in late 2026, with issues of this nature to be considered as part of that broader process.

That means the debate is far from over.

For supporters of the amendment, the vote was a missed opportunity to address a glaring gap in the law immediately. For opponents, however, the defeat was seen as a defence of the decriminalised framework and a refusal to make piecemeal changes without fuller consultation.

The parliamentary clash has thrown a sharp spotlight back on a question that Victoria’s post-decriminalisation regime has not yet resolved: how to protect sex workers from known sexual offenders without undermining the rights and hard-won reforms of the wider industry. •