Perversely, given the subject, morality is unlikely to have anything to do with it.

"With the state of Victoria allowing continued exploitation of the vulnerable in society, one has to ask on what moral grounds the Premier of Victoria Denis Napthine refuses to review the State's sex laws."

The Victorian Premier might simply be choosing political pragmatism by ignoring issues with which the broader community lacks sympathy.

"Sex workers are considered service providers without the guaranteed pay, protection, and benefits workers that other industries are afforded."

Throughout history the powerful have exploited the weak. Even in industries not subject to social stigma this is easier if the workers feel so little hope they meekly lie down and take it.

"Any legislation that empowers employers over employees should be subject to social scrutiny, and this should also be the case in the sex industry."

A role traditionally facilitated by labour unions.

Is this a situation which would benefit, in the first instance and pending legislative or regulatory change, from such an approach?

One could imagine issues of employee exploitation by a brothel owner confronted with union organizers pulling their members out.

With the exception of dominatrices who wouldn't be allowed to strike.

All true, but why focus specifically on sex workers?

Most of us that are employed are prostitutes for all intents and purposes; pimping occurs across industry; and almost every occupation has its debilitating hazards - which if they don't adversely effect our sexuality, then they adversely affects other areas of our life. Such workers across all industries who lack self-discipline, self-respect and a sense of purpose, develop psychological issues and turn out of frustration to gambling, drugs and alcohol.

Yes, human nature is derived from animal nature, so not all situations are happy, but violence is not the answer and whenever government trespasses into our life to tell us (under violent threats) what we must or mustn't do, evil is only exacerbated. The very existence of government, in fact, is immoral, not just this or that law.

The author's assumes the consensual transactions are "exploitative" but he neither defines the term nor gives any reason for thinking it's true.

He has not established any reason for increased regulation of the sexual services industry, while he himself proves that, if it wasn't for government's interferences, the sex workers would be better off.

The author has not established any ground for regulating prostitution. His talk of "exploitation" only channels Marx's exploitation theory of employment, which is based in the labour theory of value, which was exploded in 1871. Unless you answer the total refutations of that dopey and mistaken theory, you don't have a theoretical leg to stand on. You are not the self-appointed Moral Guardian of Fallen Women, Murray.

Rape and extortion are already against the law and have no relevance in this discussion, which is about the forced restriction of *consensual* activities.

People's private consensual relations are none of the government's business, and laws regulating them should be repealed, not made more extensive or intensive.