Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Victoria’s Legislative Council voted 22–17 on Wednesday against a motion to make it an offence “to conduct in-person commercial sex work while a child is present, including in a private home.”

Family First Victoria leader Moira Deeming introduced the motion, calling for the law to state explicitly that children cannot consent to commercial sexual exploitation and describing the child in such cases as a victim rather than a participant.

“This is not complicated,” Deeming said. “A child is not a sex worker. A child is not a client. And a child should never be in the house when a man is brought in as a customer.”

“The very least that [the law] should do is keep children out while that sex work is happening. To leave it as it is now is a disgrace,” Deeming told the chamber.

Every Liberal and Nationals MP present voted for the motion, alongside One Nation, the Libertarians, and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers. Labor, the Greens, Legalise Cannabis and the Animal Justice Party voted it down.

Victorian Labor dismissed Deeming’s motion as irrelevant for child safety, while the Federal Labor Party is currently arguing its Digital Duty of Care Bill is essential for the safety of children.

Deeming’s motion was the final non-government business debated before the Victorian Parliament rises ahead of the November 28 election.

Asking adults not to run a paid sex booking when a child is on the premises is not actually a big ask.

It’s the bare minimum. pic.twitter.com/n6OULTPMP4

— Moira Deeming MP (@MoiraDeemingMP) September 24, 2026

Background to the Vote

Victoria decriminalised sex work in 2023 when Labor repealed the Sex Work Act.

Under current law, it is an offence for a sexual act to occur in front of a child under 16. It is not an offence for a child to be elsewhere in the same house while a client is present for paid sex.

“The risk is the man at the door,” Deeming said. “No child, of any age, should have to meet him. Not in the room. Not in the hallway. Not in the next bedroom. Not ever.”

“That is the gap. We intend to close it.”

Libertarian MP David Limbrick, who spoke in support of the motion, told the chamber that decriminalisation had created an unintended gap. “It is actually illegal for children to be in places, such as brothels, where the primary purpose of the place is to conduct these activities,” he said. “But when these activities are carried out in a person’s private residential home, there is quite a different situation.”

He said most people who do sex work from home would already arrange for children to be elsewhere. “Nevertheless, there is a gap,” he said. “I think it should be clearly stated in the law that if sex work is going to be conducted in private residences, children should not be in the house. This is a pretty simple thing.”

Chamber Debate

One Nation MP Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell said the motion drew a boundary around children rather than regulating adults. “This is not about judging adults or regulating consenting adult behaviour,” she told the chamber. “It is about drawing a clear line around children.”

Deeming linked the vote to an earlier failed amendment moved by Limbrick that would have barred registered sex offenders from working in the sex industry. “More than half of the people in this chamber voted against Mr Limbrick’s amendment,” she said. “If this Parliament is not going to keep sex offenders out of the sex industry, the very least that it should do is keep children out while that sex work is happening.”

Labor MP Sonja Terpstra opposed the motion, telling the chamber it “identifies no evidence that a blanket residential offence would make children safer.” She said law should not be “designed around whichever produces the most provocative social media posts,” and defended the 2023 decriminalisation of prostitution.

“Labor’s record on decriminalising sex work is very clear. The Labor government is proud of the work we did to decriminalise sex work between consenting adults”, Terpstra told the chamber, arguing that that “sex work is legitimate work”.

Animal Justice Party MP Georgie Purcell accused Deeming of “stigmatising… sex workers” and argued the motion made “dangerous” assumptions about the sex industry.

“Creating a blanket offence that applies whenever an adult provides a commercial sexual service while a child happens to be somewhere on the premises could have significant consequences,” Purcell argued.

“If someone is already struggling financially, further criminalisation, fines or barriers do not necessarily make a child safer. They can make that family more financially insecure or potentially actually unsafe,” she said.

Family First Responds to Failed Motion

Family First national director Lyle Shelton said the Coalition’s silence during the debate undercut its vote. “While the Liberals voted for the motion, none of them spoke,” the party said in a statement following the result. “Silent Liberals are of little help in the battle to protect children.”

Shelton credited Deeming’s leadership of Family First’s Victorian campaign for bringing the issue to a vote in the term’s final sitting week. “Moira Deeming has put the protection of children on the agenda in the last sitting week of the term,” he said. “That is leadership.”

Deeming named the brothel law among four commitments in her first speech to Parliament, alongside sex-based rights for women and opposition to transgender medical treatment for children.

Parliament rises this week ahead of the November 28 state election, when Victorians will decide whether the MPs who voted against the motion return to the chamber.

___

Image via Facebook/Moira Deeming.