I think it will reduce human trafficking in that it would be much easier to monitor for human trafficking whereas in the past with some sort of grey-zone criminalization, you would have to actively first detect for sex workers, convince them that you are not arresting them, and then figure out if there are human traffickers or crime involved.

Its one less step if you can more easily monitor and the sex workers can speak freely to police.

In fact I'm more about how they treated sex work in several historical governments in the past and that is only government-operated brothels are allowed.

Where are you getting this idea that Australian police have far more powers than US police? There are differences here and there but our legal systems are fairly similar.

For one Australia does not have a "bill of rights". In the US, the police require probable cause to even stop or question someone. In Australia there is no such requirement. While they can't just arrest or detain people at will, they have far more power over every day people.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicious_Lawless_Association_Di...

This law would not be possible in the US due to the US constitution's protection of freedom of association, while it has been strictly enforced at times in the state of Queensland. These sorts of powers substantially weaken organized crime but at major cost to civil rights.

>In the US, the police require probable cause to even stop or question someone

They do not need probable cause, they need "reasonable suspicion"[1].

The same standard Aus had until around a decade ago (now reduced). There were nearly 700K stop and searches in NYC in 2011 alone[2] (vastly reduced now) which undermines your suggestion that the BoR provides solid protection in this particular respect. Although I agree there are some protections offered by codified rights.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

2. http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data