Prostitution Reform Bill

I begin by thanking John Carter for that arrangement, and thanking the whips and the musterers of the various caucuses for agreeing to those arrangements. It is a very sensible way of handling a complex matter.

In the next 10 minutes or so, if it is possible, I will give an overview of the legislation and a bit of the thinking behind it, referring members to the select committee report and also to the legislation. I will also attempt to make reference to some of the Supplementary Order Papers that I know are before the Committee this evening.

I will start briefly with the commentary from the Justice and Electoral Committee, which has an overview of the sex industry in New Zealand, produced for the select committee by the New Zealand Police. What that does is lay out a whole lot of issues concerning prostitution in this nation. In short, these are complex matters. They are not as simple as sex workers working on the streets and in brothels, as members will see from pages 53 to 55 of the report. There is a great range of locations and situations involving prostitution in this nation. One thing that the Justice and Electoral Committee learnt in its endless debate on these matters was the law’s sensitivity in this area. Whenever one part of the law is changed, a whole lot else can happen afterwards.

There are about 5,000 sex workers in New Zealand. It seems as though the turnover of workers is generally quite fast. We were informed that a sex worker spends, on average, 2 to 3 years working in the industry. Many people enter the sex industry often with a sense that, although they are not unwilling, there is not a free choice. Poverty, issues around abuse, addiction, and so on are major reasons for many people entering the industry. Also, many sex workers reported to the select committee that they had a problem exiting it; they felt trapped in an industry where grey areas of legality and semi-legality surround the occupation they engage in. The individual sex workers who spoke to the select committee made it very clear they were looking for clear, sensible, and understandable law—a law that did not point to them, victimise them, and label them in a way they did not think reasonable or fair.

The law in relation to prostitution in this nation broadly parallels the development of the law in the United Kingdom. Essentially, that meant a sudden move to prohibition at the end of the 19th century, followed by a succession of changes to the law, eventually resulting in what one could call a Clayton’s form of prohibition—a Kiwi form of prohibition—that allowed the existence of massage parlours that purported to offer genuine massage services. In effect, they have been a front for a prostitution industry. That means that the act of prostitution itself has never been illegal, but a whole lot of activities around prostitution are, such as aspects of a conversation between a prostitute and his or her client, or intended client, the procuring of prostitutes, and the running of brothels. Workers in intellectually handicapped centres reported to the select committee that occasionally sex workers were procured in order to provide some relief to people with disabilities. All of those activities have been illegal, whereas the act of prostitution has not.

A very vivid experience that the select committee had was to visit, together with the police, someone’s flat in Sydenham, Christchurch, and actually observe a single sex worker working from her flat in a very controlled environment. The police at that time told us that they did not think any laws were being broken. She received all her clients via the phone and had a regular clientele. On investigation, we found that she was regularly breaking four laws in her day-to-day activity as a sex worker. So we have to address a range of dangerous elements that go into increasing the threats to sex workers.

A question that the select committee spent a lot of time examining was the legal options that should apply to the sex industry. We could adopt the status quo. It is quite true that some opponents to the bill will say that the arrest rates are not particularly high and that the law is not really enforced. However, as a member of this House I certainly want to know that legislation is of high quality and can survive rigorous examination. Frankly, current prostitution legislation cannot. We could choose to legalise, which is what the State of Victoria does. That choice would mean adopting a whole State intervention system, whereby sex workers and brothels would be required to be registered, and the industry would be subject to a very tight examination of the way in which it operates day by day. Or we could adopt what is called the Swedish model. We will be debating that later on, thanks to an amendment from my colleague Dianne Yates. That model is one whereby the legal pressure goes off the sex worker and on to the client. The State takes the position of disapproving of prostitution and choosing to target the client. So far that model exists in Sweden, and there is some debate on it in other European countries.

But the model in the bill before us today, which has been the model in New South Wales for the last 8 years—and the one I would certainly advocate and that the select committee supports—is decriminalisation. The concept of decriminalisation is simply that one looks at the activity, identifies the risks in that activity that are unique to it, and designs law that deals with those risks. Then one opens up the activity to all the other general laws that exist in society. If we take the activity of prostitution as an example, we see that certain things are almost unique to prostitution, including the whole issue of safe sex, the coercion of the workers by managers, offensive signage, and workers getting trapped in the industry because of their convictions and because of public attitudes to prostitution. Those are all issues that require either special laws or special services.

Combined with that, many things within the prostitution sector would improve if the general law were allowed to apply to it, including issues of environmental nuisance to do with parking or noise from brothels, employment conditions, health and safety, and harassment in the street. Existing law in the Summary Offences Act can deal with issues such as harassment, but at the moment the whole soliciting process corrupts that approach.

That is the concept of decriminalisation, and members will see that as we work through the bill, which, in a sense, is very simple and straightforward. Part 2 runs through commercial sexual services, which is what this issue is all about, identifies the particular evils, and produces particular law to deal with those evils, for example, contracts for commercial sexual services not being void, health and safety requirements, limits on signage, and particular protections for sex workers. It also includes prohibitions of under 18-year-olds being involved in prostitution—not criminalising the young person, but instead criminalising the client—and powers to enter and inspect premises, which the health and safety approach obviously requires.

The select committee was deeply frustrated by the fact that the two major states in Australia went through fundamental law reform but did not actually produce any review process to evaluate how they had done. Larry Baldock and I are able to endlessly exchange our perceptions of what has happened in New South Wales, because there is no evaluation process on the ground. Our committee visited Australia informally, and I also went there another time to see how the law was developing. We will share that information as the Committee stage goes on. The essence of it is that the New South Wales experience has been a successful one—albeit the environment of the sex industry in New South Wales is very different from that in New Zealand. It is centred on a city that has a population greater than this whole nation. The pattern of the sex industry here is very individual to this land.

This legislation is designed around New Zealand risks and evils. We also have a series of amendments to the legislation. I particularly commend two of them. One is in the name of Phil Goff and focuses on the issue of people who have a known criminal past being banned from acting as operators in the sex industry. It also makes it a bit easier for local bodies to produce their own plans in order to focus on the particular siting of brothels in their areas. Those are two issues that the select committee wrestled with. We came up with a particular view, and, on reflection I can quite accept that those two issues are ones we should think about again. We have the Supplementary Order Paper here today to deal with it. There is also a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Lianne Dalziel. I think that one of the difficulties in processing a member’s bill is that the legislation does not go around Government departments prior to coming to a committee, and the Immigration Service did not have sufficient time or opportunity to look at it. In now looking at it, some gaps have been found, and Lianne Dalziel’s amendment deals with those.

I will finish in the minute before the dinner break this evening. I certainly commend those two Supplementary Order Papers to the Committee. I do not intend to be a dominant force in the course of the Committee stage, but I will respond when I think it is useful. I commend the commentary on the bill and the legislation, and I look forward to rigorous debate over the next hours and days.

I think that time is serving to my disadvantage here, but I would like to start by saying that I am really interested in—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

DIANNE YATES: I wish to speak in the debate on the title of what is now called the Prostitution Reform Bill, which I think could probably be more aptly called the “Clients Protection Bill”. I note that the promoter of the bill, Tim Barnett, several times at the beginning of this debate referred to the bill as being about sex workers or as the “Sex Workers Bill”, and herein is the problem.

The Human Rights Commission prepared a paper on this bill, in which the commission, while not giving an opinion, laid out the thinking behind relevant human rights instruments. Attitudes towards prostitution and this bill can be based on one of two basic premises. One is, as Tim Barnett has said, that prostitutes are workers—sex workers—and as such should be treated as any other worker, and in this case the bill goes only part of the way. Although it purports to have health measures, and protections and rights for the workers, I consider that it benefits the clients rather than the prostitutes. I am sure any prostitutes with AIDS, or who are pregnant, will lose their job, and I doubt that they will qualify for Accident Compensation Corporation payments.

The other premise is that prostitution is, as Mr Barnett said himself in his speech, evil—it is something that people will not go into willingly, and something that they want to get out of; I think he gave an average time of about 3 years—and that prostitution is exploitation of a group in society. The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women states in article 6: “State Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.” The UN in this context uses the term “exploitation”. There is an international debate on how we prevent the exploitation of women, and prostitutes in general. I do not believe this bill provides for the reform of prostitution in New Zealand, as stated in the title, which is why, if we get that far, I have put forward an amendment that could be called the “Swedish amendment”, because it is based on the law in Sweden. It basically says, let us get rid of the prosecution of prostitutes and let us get rid of the anomalies of prostitution in the law and in this country. Let us not decriminalise, or even criminalise, prostitution or make prostitution a legitimised occupation. It says, let us prosecute the clients. Let us get rid of the demand and we will not need prostitutes, and we will comply with the UN declaration about exploitation.

Arguments about prostitution being always with us and being the oldest profession do not wash. Stealing will always be with us, yet we do not decriminalise it, and there is no suggestion we should do so. Arguments about driving prostitution underground do not wash. It is the clients who are underground and secretive, rather than the prostitutes, and I believe we should concentrate on the clients.

I have spent a good time of my life teaching, and I did not teach girls, in particular, to make a living off their backs, but trained them for what are now legitimate occupations. I ask, if we decriminalise prostitution are we going to pay spouses for sex also? We have trouble even trying to convince people that they should be paid or recognised for housework. I do not believe we should continue to exploit women, and I do not believe we should totally commercialise society.

I would like to compliment the member who has just resumed her seat, because I believe she does not believe terribly much in this bill at all, and she quite misguidedly thinks that she can amend the bill with one simple clause to make it go along the lines of the Swedish model. I tell her she is absolutely misguided if she believes she can change this bill and make it something along the lines of the Swedish model. This bill needs to be scrapped, and we need to start again if we are to obtain laws based on the Swedish model. My colleague Brent Catchpole has a member’s bill that does just that.

We should scrap this bill and start again. It is a confusing bill. We need only look at the amendments and the Supplementary Order Papers to see that. We have Supplementary Order Paper 56 from Dianne Yates, to base the bill on the Swedish model. That will not work. Phil Goff wants to turn what is, basically, a decriminalised model into a legalised model, and to license operators—for very good reasons. I say again that that will not work. Wayne Mapp wants to tighten up the existing laws: to maintain the status quo, but with a little bit of tightening up here and there. That, again, will not work. Lianne Dalziel has introduced an amendment that restricts immigrants coming into this country from getting jobs in the sex industry or promoting that industry. All in all, that indicates there are not very many people in favour of the decriminalised model. We should, in fact, scrap this bill and start again.

One thing is for certain: this bill does not represent the reform of the prostitution industry, if I can call it an industry. The title, the Prostitution Reform Bill, is not apt. It is not correct. In essence, Gordon Copeland from United Future probably has a better title that is more applicable to what the bill does, but I will not be voting for that title, either. I personally will be voting against all the amendments I have seen tonight on the Supplementary Order Papers, because I think this bill has gone in totally the wrong direction, and to implement some of the amendments as outlined on the Supplementary Order Papers would just confuse the issue even more.

If this bill was to have a correct title, it would be along the lines of the “Pimping Reform Bill”. This bill opens the door for wholesale pimping in the prostitution industry, and the people who get involved in that sort of activity will be rubbing their hands with glee, thinking about the amount of money they can earn if this bill is passed. Or it could well be titled the “Pimping Advancement Bill” or perhaps the “Prostitution Advancement Bill”, because if this bill comes through the House as it is written, or even with some of these amendments, we will see all sorts of expansion in the prostitution industry. There will be no boundaries for anybody to control the industry. The police will have no access to brothels, unless they suspect that something extraordinary is going on. There will be no control whatsoever.

When this bill was promoted, it was advocated that it would assist prostitutes with their health problems. When the Justice and Electoral Committee visited Christchurch, in particular, the prostitutes told us in no uncertain terms—and indeed, every sex worker who came before the select committee was equally categoric about this—that there are no health problems in the sex industry. Sex workers said they get all the advice they need, and they get all the equipment they need, free of charge, I gather, from the health service. So this bill somewhat deceives people when it states that it will tidy up the health concerns in the sex industry.

The title of this bill is not apt. This bill, if it comes in, will lead to all sorts of adverse activities. It will give incentives to pimps, it will give incentives to people to encourage child sex, and it will give incentives to people to traffic in women.

I wish to move an amendment to the title of this bill. My amendment is to omit the words “Prostitution Reform Act 2000” and to substitute the words “Prostitution, Solicitation, Pimping, and Brothel-keeping Legalisation Act 2003”. Although, based on the feedback I have received, this is not yet clear to the public, by now it should certainly be clear to the members of this House that prostitution, in and of itself—that is, the buying and selling of sex—is already legal in New Zealand. In spite of that, I noted during the second reading of the bill that a number of members continued to state simplistically that the aim of this bill was to decriminalise prostitution. Even within this House, therefore, it would appear that members remain confused about what this bill is intended to do. This bill will, in fact, decriminalise soliciting, pimping—that is, living off the proceeds of prostitution—and brothel-keeping, the three things listed as crimes in the Crimes Act. If that is the reality, then let us simply give the bill a correct title.

I will continue to vote against this bill. I do not agree with the decriminalisation of soliciting, pimping, and brothel-keeping. Prostitution is an extremely high-risk and a dangerous occupation for any woman, from both a physical and an emotional point of view. But without in any way minimising that reality, prostitution is also bad for men and bad for families. I was staggered to learn that New Zealand has a higher per capita number of prostitutes than the Netherlands, which is regarded as the “sex for sale” capital of Europe. I asked myself how that could possibly be. Then I discovered that the rate of sole parent, and therefore fatherless, families in New Zealand is 3.5 times higher than in the Netherlands. What do members think all those missing men do? If those men are married they commit adultery, and that is a wrong against their wives. If they are fathers, then every time that they make a payment of $100 for sex—the figure mentioned by Judith Collins—that is, in effect, money stolen from the support of their children.

When we look at prostitution in those terms, we see we simply cannot risk further stimulating the demand for prostitutes in this country. Yet in my view that is exactly what this bill will do. I ask all members to examine their conscience clearly and objectively on this issue. If they knew for certain that an additional 500 women would be drawn into prostitution as a result of our passing this legislation, would they vote for it? Would they vote for it if the number were 100, 10, or just one? In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Sam said when they were approaching Mordor: “This was not supposed to happen, Mr Frodo.” Frodo replied: “Many things have happened, Sam, that were not supposed to have happened.” Members should think carefully, and examine their own conscience, about whether the decriminalisation of soliciting, pimping, and brothel-keeping is supposed to happen in New Zealand in 2003.

In rising to speak on this bill, I want to begin by pointing out that the promoters of this bill say that its fundamental purpose is to protect or safeguard the individual rights of prostitutes. Would that be the reality of passing this legislation or would it, effectively, work to expand the opportunities for prostitution as an industry? I ask that question of those individual members who are wavering or who are on the fence on this legislation. Bills that are put to a conscience vote deal with complex moral and ethical issues, yet one simple question must be posed: do we want prostitution to increase? In other countries, including Australia, where the prostitution laws have been liberalised the activity has flourished. I believe the problems associated with the industry could also potentially increase, including child prostitution, trafficking in women, violence against prostitutes, and blatant advertising for both the services provided and the recruitment of prostitutes.

In speaking to the title, one title could be the “Opening up the Trafficking of Men and Women into Prostitution Bill”. That could be a different title, because that is significantly what the legislation will do. My personal opinion is that we have a regime that is too loose. As far as immigration is concerned, we have seen a lot of different people coming into this country who should not be coming in. The regime is loose enough as it is, and I believe that this bill will not help whatsoever. This bill allows for decriminalisation of prostitution, and in my view in whatever form it is passed we will see more prostitution. I really believe that that is a fact. This legislation will allow for the increased exploitation of women, and I do not believe that any amendments will stop that. I see where Dianne Yates is coming from—I see what is in her heart, and I see the purpose of what she is trying to do—but at the end of the day we have to make sure we do not water the bill down in any way. I believe that we have to vote against any amendments to the bill, because the whole bill needs to be thrown out and we need to look again at reforming prostitution by starting from square one.

Reform is desirable if we are to eliminate a double standard. Currently the demand is legal, and the supply is illegal. Changes are essential in order to protect and empower women in the sex industry. The bill is not the answer to that. It does little to minimise the activity, by restricting entry into the profession or encouraging prostitutes to leave the industry. Law plays a major part in determining behaviour. That which is unpunishable by law becomes increasingly accepted by society. Prostitution is a trade that has always been around; so have burglary and drug trafficking. Does the logic follow that we may as well decriminalise those activities, in order to protect the people involved in them? I think not.

I suggest that the bill before us should be called the “Prostitution Perform Bill”, because those who believe that prostitutes are nothing more than free agents exercising their right to sell their bodies in a free-market transaction could not be more wrong about that. Instead of liberating sex workers, this legislation will expand their opportunities in a crime-infested industry. The bill could easily have been called the “Politically Erect Women’s Career Degradation Bill”. Let us not be naive. One cannot separate drugs, violence, servitude, and crime from prostitution simply by legalising prostitution. The result of passing this legislation will be an expansion of the sex trade, and new opportunities for drugs and violence, as well. Police monitoring and enforcement will become increasingly difficult—certainly more onerous, and in all likelihood, futile. Decriminalisation of prostitution will mean that brothels could, and would, be lawfully established in our suburbs and our communities, with scant regard to the wishes of those communities. How do we expect to restrict the proliferation of brothels under this legislation? The rampant drug usage within the sex industry will end up with more locations to operate from—or is this just the first step towards the decriminalisation of the drug industry, as well? Why do we not call this bill the “Anti-democratic and Ethically Challenged Bill”?

Why do 8,000 prostitutes have the right to foist their interests on the rest of us and to gain legitimacy over us, in spite of our views? If their case is as compelling as that, then at least let us have a referendum. Let us hear the wisdom and common sense of our fellow Kiwis, who do not believe Mr Barnett’s claim that prostitution is an idea whose time has come. Its time has not come. Overseas experience shows that decriminalisation encourages more women into prostitution, and, without the fear of prosecution, there will be increased competition, greater control by gangs, more pimping, and an even greater risk of violence, intimidation, and female abuse.

We could even call this bill the “Prostitution (Business Protection) Bill”, because Mr Barnett does not simply want to decriminalise prostitution but wants the industry to have the status of a preferred business. He has dismissed suggestions that brothels be licensed, because that would, in his words, “push smaller owners behind closed doors”, and because prostitutes would be penalised by having to—again in his words—“face the same costs as large brothels to process applications”. So, in complete contradiction to the practice of all other legitimate businesses that would welcome similar reductions in compliance costs, Mr Barnett wants prostitution to have a preferred status.

If the bill passes there will be a widening job market for women; that is for sure. They will be able to choose occupations ranging from Prime Minister to prostitute as legitimate jobs—from serving the people to being served up. The truth is that the push for decriminalisation, the removal of the legal consequences of prostitution, is only a hop away from ethical approval of prostitution. Where is our vision when we push to legislate for a legal tolerance of prostitution? That is nothing more than political correctness dressed up in a whore’s skirt, and hoisted above the ethical Plimsoll line. Decriminalisation would be a victory of stupidity over common sense, a damning indictment of the place in which we hold women in our society, and a pathway of ethical bankruptcy for future generations.

This bill should not be called the Prostitution Reform Bill, because it reforms nothing. It is the “Prostitutes Perform Bill” in intent and effect. This bill is not the answer, because when society makes an activity unpunishable by law, that inevitably makes that activity acceptable. The supporters of this bill claim it will stop child prostitution, but that is already illegal. Decriminalising the sex trade for those over 18 will do for underage prostitutes what lowering the drinking age has done for underage drinkers. Women did not demand the right to vote only to have their true worth denied and their status undermined through being seen as purchasable sex objects. How did we get to such a ridiculous state where valiant women have fought for the right to stand on their feet, only to be rewarded with the right to be on their backs? This is not a reform bill, it is a “perform” bill that crushes a woman’s spirit.

I tell members to look to their children and to see their ethical inheritance. Neither the author of this bill nor its supporters in this Chamber who are attempting to pass this legislation will be there to pick up the pieces. They will deliver their vote and walk away, and those of us who give a damn will be left to clean up after them.

I rise in support of the title of this bill in the name of Tim Barnett, and, in doing so, I follow on from my friend and colleague Marc Alexander, who set out his views in a very clear way. I think that reminded us all that there is a sharp division of members’ views on the bill we are discussing, with people taking very different attitudes and approaches to it. It is good that we are starting the debate in the Committee stage by talking about the title of the bill, and what that title is intended to mean when it comes to the law that we are trying to put through Parliament.

I will not be supporting Mr Copeland’s amendment to the title, because I do not think the negative connotations he feels we are trying to put in place are what is trying to be achieved. I start from the point of view that I am a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and we wrote in our report that we neither condemn nor condone prostitution. This is not a prostitution promotion bill. This is a Prostitution Reform Bill because it reforms the current law on, and the current legal status of, prostitution on the law books in our country. I do not believe that any of us on the committee passed a moral judgment on prostitution. From my point of view, we simply said that we recognise the existence—I think the words in the report were the “enduring nature” of the existence—of prostitution. Then, having recognised that, we asked what legal status prostitution should be given, in order to protect the greatest number of people and to bring more justice into the law.

Throughout the debate, members have forgotten a lot of things about what is in the bill, and when we talk about clause 3, the purpose clause, we need to remember there is a specific reference at that point to no moral judgment being passed on prostitution. Mr Alexander mentioned the issue of child prostitution, and this bill, I believe, will give us a better chance of fighting the coercion of younger people into working in this industry. Clearly, very few members in this House—and I acknowledge Mr McNair, who spoke earlier about this issue, as well—would want us to promote prostitution to young people as their first career choice. What has not come out—and I hope it will come out during the Committee stage—is that we have put specific provisions in the bill so that prostitution will not be something that is promoted to people by way of career guidance at schools, by the Accident Compensation Corporation when it is looking to encourage people back into work, or by Work and Income if it is work testing or looking at different options for people. We are not putting prostitution into a category where we are saying we want to encourage people to work as prostitutes.

I do not believe the number of prostitutes is necessarily important. I believe what is important is that those who do work in that industry can do so safely and with protection, and that those who want to leave the industry are facilitated and enabled to do so. The fact that we are changing prostitution from an underground activity and acknowledging that it does exist will enable support systems to flourish around people who work in the sex industry. It will also mean, in the case of young people working in the industry, that there can be a zero tolerance approach to that, because those who work as prostitutes will have legal protection, so therefore will be able to report brothel-keepers who are using young people under the age of 18 to work in the industry. I spoke very strongly in support of that at the select committee stage. I do not think it is appropriate at all for people under the age of 18 to be working in the sex industry. This bill gives us the first chance to do something meaningful about that.

Those are some of the reasons that I am supporting the bill. Of course, no one could be induced or coerced into prostitution under the bill. Those safeguards and provisions are in there, as well. I think the title of the bill sums up quite well what we are trying to do: we are reforming the law, to try to create a new legal environment. We are not changing any moral environment here. I do not know whether the number of prostitutes will go up or down. I say it is more important that we have proper law. The Prostitution Reform Bill, as named by Tim Barnett, is well named, and I will be supporting it.

I follow on from my colleague across the Chamber to say that I too support this bill and the title as it stands. We in the Green Party believe that this bill is all about reform—nothing else. It is reforming something that has needed reform for a very long time. Our laws on prostitution are based on 19th century prejudices and morals, and on legal codes that are well over 100 years out of date. It is high time we carried out a genuine reform of something that, to my way of thinking, is a moral question. It is a moral question that should not be legislated. In other words, we are making a choice here that affects people’s lives. Do we really say that we have the right to maintain the criminalisation of a whole section of the population for consenting acts of sex between adults? To me, that is what this debate comes down to.

Peter Brown talked about this bill opening the door to wholesale pimping. Nothing could be further from the truth. From hearing, over 2 years, a large number of submissions, and from taking part in much debate in this area, I have found, interestingly enough, that of the groups that opposed this bill, some of the massage parlour owners opposed it the most. These days they are the people who do—some of them—make profits from dreadful, in some cases, exploitation of sex workers. They are the sorts of people who feel threatened by this bill, not the sex workers. The sex workers see it as a way finally to begin to be able to fight back and end some of the grosser exploitations they are subject to. Some of them endure the most horrific working conditions in brothels and massage parlours. They, and people like me, see this bill as an instrument of their liberation, of their ability to unionise, should they so choose. The bill also increases their ability to form themselves into self-employed groups of women or men, as some of them already do, as they see this as a much more empowered way of operating. If this bill goes through it will help to break down a lot of exploitation—gang control and the worst exploitation by criminal men that happens in some parts of the industry.

Mr Brown also talked about there being perverse incentives to encourage child sex and to encourage trafficking of women. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. This bill makes it very clear that there are very, very high penalties against any form of coercion. There are very high penalties against people who use sex workers who are under 18. The young people under 18 will not be criminalised, but those who use them will be. This bill strengthens the changes to the Crimes Act that were made several years ago. Some people, in talking to this debate, are simply flying in the face of what the bill actually states.

Mr Copeland talked about prostitution already being legal in New Zealand. Well and good; he is technically correct. But with 12 sex workers in Auckland just a few weeks ago being arrested in one weekend, members cannot tell me that this is a legal industry. It is not. Women and men are still being persecuted and prosecuted for taking part in this occupation. It is a really unfortunate argument to say. “Why do we have this bill? People don’t suffer from prosecution any more.” Indeed, they do, and I cannot quite understand why the police at this time are taking such punitive action, especially when in Auckland we also have unsolved murders in the streets around Karangahape Road and south Auckland. If the police were serious, they would be bending over backwards to develop and maintain a good relationship with street workers and sex workers. They are doing the opposite by picking on them and by persecuting people more than they have for years. I have to wonder about the role the police are playing in Auckland at the moment.

Mr Copeland also talked about prostitution as a physically and mentally high-risk activity. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would deny that. Certainly, no one who sat on the select committee and no one who has had anything to do with the industry would. The very fact that prostitution is a physically and mentally high-risk industry is the reason we have this bill. Decriminalising prostitution will make health and other forms of social services much easier for sex workers to obtain. The very fact that the possession of condoms will not be able to be used any more as a factor in prosecuting sex workers will be a huge step forward. I find it iniquitous that in the 21st century we should have a situation where people can be prosecuted and persecuted because they are found with a large quantity of condoms. This is in the age of AIDS, hepatitis, and many other diseases. It is unbelievable.

I rise to support the bill and to foreshadow Supplementary Order Paper 70 in my name, which I believe addresses some shortcomings and some necessary protections for society as a whole in the bill as reported back from the select committee.

I made a decision some time ago that no purpose would be served in making a criminal out of a person who works as a sex worker. I have heard no argument in the House during this debate as to why somebody who works as a sex worker ought to be a criminal—the more so, of course, given the fact that the person who is the client of that sex worker commits no criminal offence. It was a law drafted by men in favour of men at a time when only women were regarded as working as prostitutes.

There are evils associated with prostitution. I have to say that I do not regard prostitution as normal. I cannot understand why people would work in such an industry, other than maybe out of necessity if they had a drug addiction and were financing that addiction. The evils I am talking about surrounding prostitution are the evils of coercion and the evils of child prostitution and young people as prostitutes. We have addressed those evils in legislation already passed through the House in the last 2 years.

I draw the attention of the Committee to the Crimes Amendment Act, because when I mentioned it to some members they were not aware of the changes that occurred under it. That was an Act I passed as Minister of Justice in 2001. The Act made it an offence to be the client of a prostitute who was under the age of 18. That, in combination with what is in this bill, provides appropriate protection against young people, both men and women, being exploited at that age. That also enabled us to comply with the ILO Convention Concerning the Worst Forms of Child Labour.

The other evil associated with prostitution is the evil of coercion. Last year this House made trafficking or smuggling of people an offence. The sentence for that is up to 20 years in prison, and a fine of $500,000. There was no way this House could have made it more clear that it was against the use of coercion to force people into a trade such as prostitution. Another problem with prostitution as it currently stands—that is, that soliciting is illegal—is that we have tended to force that particular type of work into the shadows. As a result, too often prostitutes fall under the control of organised criminal gangs. I am not talking hypothetically; I am talking about what happens right now.

This House can pretend that prostitution is illegal. We all know that it exists. One can pick up the Dominion Post any day of the week and see a full page of advertisements for sex workers. We also know from the police submission to the select committee that more often than not criminal gangs are involved with prostitution. Having prostitution as a criminal offence, is more likely to encourage that outcome than decriminalising the soliciting of services by sex workers.

My amendments are designed to do two things. Firstly, they are designed to empower territorial local authorities, if they wish, to pass by-laws to prevent places of prostitution being established in areas where plainly it is inappropriate for them to be, and that is largely in residential areas, but members might consider that areas adjacent to preschools or schools are also inappropriate. It is important that the local authorities have that power. That power, as set out on my Supplementary Order Paper, would expire 2 years after commencement, because the advice I have from Local Government New Zealand is that that is the time period necessary for local authorities to amend their district plans to restrict the location of places of prostitution. I believe that any neighbourhood has the right to keep places of prostitution out of its area. There are commercial areas where prostitution may exist, and obviously that would not cause any offence to neighbours; but to have legislation that would enable places of prostitution to be located in the midst of neighbourhoods is quite inappropriate.

The second power I have set out on my Supplementary Order Paper is the power the police need to keep people with serious criminal convictions—convictions relating to violence, sexual offences, drugs, arms, and gang-related offences—out of running prostitution. We have in this country laws that state that if a person wants to sell a second-hand car, he or she has to be a person of a suitable character. It would be plainly inappropriate to regulate for people in these sorts of occupations, but we are trying to get away from saying that the occupation of prostitution is one that is quite appropriate to place in the hands of the criminal underworld. That is why my Supplementary Order Paper sets out the offences. People convicted of them would be prevented from being able to legally operate a place of prostitution. The police say that they need that power to ensure such people do not work in the industry. If a person operating a place of prostitution is convicted of violence or drug offences, the chances are that such a person would use coercion against the people who may be working for him or her. As demonstrated in public opinion polls, the community, although divided in opinion about the matter of decriminalisation, would be more comfortable about a law decriminalising the industry, if it provided the protections I have set out on my Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that those unsuitable to be operating places of prostitution are kept out of it, and if it ensured that territorial local authorities could prohibit places of prostitution from being established in areas where it is inappropriate to have them.

I would like to speak against the title of this Prostitution Reform Bill. To me, reform implies there are increased health and safety requirements. However, I cannot see anything in the bill that will safeguard the men, women, and children who are involved in the sex industry, despite this attempt to normalise prostitution by writing in health and safety requirements—such as that applying in any manufacturing workplace. There is no way that anything that happens behind closed doors in a brothel can be managed by the owner, in the same way as in a manufacturing environment or any other workplace in New Zealand.

The women, mainly, involved in the sex industry in this country deserve to be safe, but I cannot see anything in this bill that does that. Any building that is used in a manufacturing environment, or for the sale of goods, must meet the requirements of the building code and be registered for the business. The registration is usually checked on a pretty regular basis—at least annually. I believe that if this bill was really serious about health and safety for prostitutes, then the same building safety regulations would be in place, and some external agency could go in and check on them. But unfortunately they are not. I know that the buildings that are used for these purposes are normally not up to reasonably good safety standards. I believe if this bill was serious it would ensure that there were regular checks, and also registration to ensure the safety of the people working in these buildings.

To me, reform gives the impression that something is better than it was. This bill does nothing to promote the safety of the men, women, and children who are working in this industry. Reform implies that this work is a legal, safe, career choice, but there is no safety inherent in the bill. I would like to think that safety included safety of the environment. There is nothing in the bill that does that. If the work is legal, then the industry really needs to follow the same requirements as any other workplace. The health and safety measures in this bill imply the industry is self-regulating, but, without the interference of some other body, those measures cannot be enforced. The bill has a very serious flaw in this area.

I was not going to speak in the course of this debate. I have a clear position that I will vote against this bill, so I hope it tumbles at the first hurdle, which is the debate on the title. But I cannot sit here idly and listen to the comments that the Minister of Justice made in a speech that I believe was riddled with legal error. In case others might think that there is merit in the legal comments that he has offered to the Committee, I would seek to correct that, and briefly deal with three points. The first point that the Minister made is fair enough in itself, and it is a response to what others have said. The suggestion is that there is something in this bill that will deal with the problem of child prostitution, and he was accurate in his comments to say that that is an issue on which this Parliament has already passed judgment in a condemnatory way, and that this bill will do nothing to deal with that particular issue. The law is in place to deal well, I would argue, with this hazard of child prostitution.

In this debate we are involved in talking about the ability of Parliament to legislate moral values. That is a fraught exercise on any view of it. I have always felt that the most that a Parliament can do is provide indicators of the type of behaviour that we would seek to encourage. When we get to a position, as we are in this bill, of seeking to legislate moral values, I am certain we will fail in that quest.

The second issue the Minister spoke about, which is directly referable to Supplementary Order Paper 70 that the Minister is promoting, is the by-law provision. Some members seated opposite will immediately be able to see the error of that proposal. They will be people who are in the Chamber tonight who know about the processes of local government and the interrelationship between the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act. An integral part of the Minister’s proposal is that there be interim by-law control. The explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper contemplates that those by-laws will have a short-term effect, and in due time will be replaced by provisions in a district plan. Those who know this area of planning law will know that a local authority may, immediately, in terms of the relevant planning legislation by way of plan change, introduce interim prohibitions. That in itself would be, if a local authority were so minded, sufficient to deal with the planning issues that arise in the context of what is seen to be unsavoury activity damaging to the public interest.

The third aspect that the Minister has pushed hard at members of this Committee relates to the involvement of criminal gangs in this area. There is no doubt about it, such gangs do exist. But last June this Minister pushed through changes to the Crimes Act in a new section 98A that sufficiently dealt with the issue of participation in organised criminal groups. So I would say, for those who are undecided in the way that they might vote on this bill, that what the Minister has proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 70 achieves nothing at all. I hope members might reflect on that. It is not appropriate, I suggest, for the Minister to offer flawed legal advice to the Committee that may have as its objective an attempt to woo support for his position, because his position is wholly and utterly flawed.

I rise in support of the title of this bill, and I will be voting in favour of it. I will be doing that because of the word “reform”. The word “reform” in this bill is not to be interpreted as those who have been addressing this issue so far say, to change the law that has been operating, because no laws have effectively been operating. That was demonstrated by my learned colleague the Minister of Justice, who said that in June of 2001 he passed the Crimes Amendment Act for the prosecution of those people who used children in pornography. To my knowledge there have been no such prosecutions. That tells us one of two things. Either all the talk in this Parliament about child prostitution in this country, and all the billboards by well-funded reactive elements by the airports that talk about child prostitution, are not basing their arguments on fact. Or it tells us that the police do not know what is going on out there, and are not able to enforce the law.

So on the evidence itself, of an amendment to the Crimes Act in 2001, we clearly either do not have child prostitution, or we have no way of detecting it. It may well be the latter. In the police report, which is appendix B to this bill, the police say: “Due to the hidden nature of the sex industry there is very little quantitative data available on the numbers of people involved.” I want members to reflect on that. If we do not know whether there is a problem, how can we make those assertions about the problem? If we do not know how big the problem is, assuming there is one, how can we make any changes? We hear figures from this well-funded institute, the Maxim Institute, which has got to the churches, and we see form letters, and it quotes the increase in prostitution in New South Wales. The one fault in that argument is that no one knew what the starting point was. So when one gets those inflammatory figures, one must say that someone has a hidden agenda here. And the hidden agenda is an agenda based upon a moral position, and people attempting to impose their moral position on other people who do not share it.

I have huge respect for the churches. I have huge respect for every person who has copied the Maxim Institute form letter and sent it to me, because they are taking part in democracy. But unfortunately I cannot fail to be convinced that they are other than pawns in some bigger campaign. Their fear of doom is being parlayed by other people who should know better—to thwart the bill’s going through this House.

The reason this bill is well named as a reform bill has been ignored by all speakers I have heard thus far. The word “reform” goes on through the life of this legislation, at least for the first 3 to 5 years, and is contained in clause 9N of the bill. The bill establishes that a Prostitution Law Review Committee must be set up. It has two responsibilities. It must assess the number of persons working as sex workers in New Zealand and any prescribed matters relating to sex workers or prostitution, and it must report on its findings to the Minister of Justice. Then, no sooner than the expiry of 3 years, but before the expiry of 5 years, there must be a review of the operation of the Act since its commencement. There must be an assessment of the impact of the Act on the number of people working as sex workers, and on any prescribed matters relating to sex workers or prostitution. It must assess the nature and adequacy of the means available to assist persons. It must consider whether any changes are necessary to the law. It must consider the overall picture. Once we have a starting point from which we can look at reform, we can stand up in this Parliament and argue sensibly. We can put our personal bandwagons to one side, we can stop our inhibitions that are motivated by fear, we can put our childhood hang-ups on the hook at the back door, and we can say: this is the data we have; either there is no problem, or, if there is, we can apply our collective intelligence and bring in a change. And then we are talking about reform. Until then, we are shooting the breeze, and we are expressing our own individual fears and hang-ups.

I want those who have foreshadowed doom already, and made a mockery of the title of this bill by proposing fatuous amendments, to just reflect on this. If they will continue on that line, they will not be passing any law that has any rational sense. They will make the lives of many people miserable, including those men who use prostitutes.

It will be very hard to convey some of my sentiments on this bill in a 5-minute speech, but I will make my best effort. When I became an Associate Minister of Health in 1990, one of the first briefings I had from the Ministry of Health was about the biggest threat that faced New Zealand, and it was to do with HIV/AIDS. I was told that if we went down the same path as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Hamburg, or Glasgow, we would see the most stunning levels of the infection going through our intravenous drug user community, our sex worker community, and our homosexual community. It seemed to me that there was some logic in being a pragmatist rather than a moralist. I understand that there are people in this Parliament who feel strongly about the sale of someone’s body for money, and I do not think it is a particularly nice concept. If someone asked me whether I would like my daughter to be a prostitute when she grows up, my answer would be no. I do not particularly like the idea that my sons might grow up to be homosexual, but they might. If it does happen, it will be best to live with it in a way that tries to minimise the harm and the damage to those people, rather than sitting in judgment, and saying, “I’m going to outlaw and ban it.” That has not worked in any form of moral code for human beings at all.

Larry Baldock asked a question today about the involvement of gangs in prostitution. I tell that member that the biggest gang involvement was that of the mafia in the United States, who were involved in corruption and coercion within prostitution while it was totally illegal. It does not make sense to say that if it is kept illegal, the gangs, the underworld, and the corruption will somehow be kept out. If anything, I think the logic works the other way.

What we are talking about here—or, at least, I hope that is all we are talking about—is a matter of “willing seller, willing buyer” conducted between consenting adults, away from the public gaze. I certainly do not want young children involved. I do not want coercion involved. I do not want drug industries involved, or immigration breaches, stolen property, or gangs involved. If any of those things are involved, then I welcome the police using all their muscle and might to go in and clean up those aspects of the industry. I do not think there are many members of this Parliament who do not want that to happen.

As an Associate Health Minister I funded the Prostitutes Collective to go out and give condoms to their members, saying: “Don’t have sex without one of these, because there is a dreadful virus that knows no boundaries, and it can kill you and your client, and your client’s brother and sister, who may happen to sleep with someone else.” I remember an elderly lady once said to me at a meeting, “What you are talking about with prostitutes is disgusting.”, and I said, “What if your son visited one?”, to which she replied, “He never would.” But some people must visit prostitutes, because there are 10,000 sex workers, and they must have some clients. Even if that woman’s son did not visit a prostitute, he might fall in love with a young lady, who had been going out with a guy who had been with a prostitute at some stage, and, as the HIV virus knows no boundaries, he might be infected, as well. We all have an obligation to try to be sensible about that.

I came at the subject from the same perspective I used in regard to the clean-needle exchange. I do not like people using heroin. I think it is wrong that they use it, but I would rather that they use clean needles than share HIV and hepatitis and all the other dreadful viruses. There are some lunatics like the Catholic Action Group, which thinks that that is something God visits on people who are evil. The Catholic Action Group sent me an email saying I would burn in the furnace for eternity, because I supported fornication. I am happy to admit to that—my hand is now up. I am a fornicator, and I hope other members are prepared to say they are, as well. I am happy to say so. I have done the maths, and using my physics formula I have worked out that if the furnace is 5,000 degrees, and my 82-kilogram frame were thrown into it, I would last 3.2 seconds—that is hardly an eternity. I do not think I will burn for a long time at all; the Catholic Action Group is an outrage.

I heard other things in this House during the time of the homosexual law reform that really riled me. They were mainly from my own colleagues—John Banks, Norman Jones, and others. Fran Wilde was told that she would go—she would be history—because she was advocating the “immoral” decriminalisation of homosexuality. She was not actually making it compulsory, she was just decriminalising it. Norman Jones said we would see homosexuals copulating on the side of the motorway as we drove home at night; it is in Hansard—have a look. I have not yet seen one homosexual copulating on the motorway as I drive home.

I do want to get this clear, because I do know where the moral conservative view comes from, and I understand it. We need to make sure that this legislation stops all the nasty elements, because I do not want people being coerced into prostitution, and I do not want young people being involved in this. I remember that the day after we had negotiated the contracts with the Prostitutes Collective for the funding of condoms, the police went into a brothel in Christchurch, posing as TV3 cameramen. One officer went upstairs into the bedroom, took his gear off, and lay naked beside a young lady, who said, “What can I do for you for $100?”, and he said, “You’re busted.” Give us a break! That is ridiculous. We had the police totally working against what the Ministry of Health was desperately trying to achieve.

I know that Phil Goff has some concerns, and so do I, in regard to whether prostitution will be stuck in residential neighbourhoods, and whether local authorities can license it, and so on, but I ask members to think about this. If it is a case of willing seller and willing buyer, between consenting adults, do members think they have a dog’s show of ever making it stop? It has been around long before politicians have been, and it has been around since before we were around—but only just. It will always be around because of necessity. We are not all as handsome as Peter Brown. We cannot all visit the ports of the world and get it for free, like he did. Some of the poor bastards who look like I do have to pay when we go around the world—I have not, but I am sure that it will happen one day.

Where is the victim? That is the question I ask the moral right—if that is what those people who oppose it are called. The example of the homosexual law reform is really good, because the next thing I got was the Keith Hay brigade—which was pretty much made up of the people who fund the Maxim Institute—coming to me and saying: “You support the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, and you’re dog tucker in your electorate. You’re gone. You will never be re-elected.” It scared the living bejesus out of me. I thought, “Wow. They’ve got such networks and funding that this will impact on me.” But guess what—it made not one jot of difference. I got elected in 1987 and carried on.

The best example can be provided by Fran Wilde. People in this House said to Fran Wilde: “Listen here. You’re gone. You will never be re-elected. You’re history.” In 1987, after she had passed the bill, she got an increased majority. In 1990 she withstood the blue flood of National seats that took over the Wellington area. We won Miramar, and all sorts of seats, but we did not win Wellington Central, because Fran Wilde stayed on. She then stood for the mayoralty and got one of the biggest votes ever, and, in my view, Fran Wilde is one of New Zealand’s very valuable citizens. She saw a need to fix something, and she did it.

I hope that as members debate this issue they will understand that we are not advocating the evils of child prostitution, or coercion, corruption, or anything else—I would be on the ramparts fighting against that, as well. I am asking members to please think about something that will always occur behind closed doors, whatever members legislate tonight, and whatever members think is morally right or wrong. Why do we not just say that it is not a criminal offence?

I know that New Zealand audiences never see this, but what amazes me is that no one in New Zealand ever understood that prostitution has always been legal here. It is stupidity, if I go down to one of the brothels tonight, and say to someone, “Here’s a hundred bucks, will you do something for me?”, no one is a criminal; but if the prostitute says, “Give us a hundred bucks, and I’ll do the following—”, she alone is a criminal. If that is not a law made by men, for men, I do not know what is.

Members who think the Dianne Yates solution is right, to make everybody a criminal, have got to be dreaming. That would be about as successful as prohibition was in the United States in the 1920s. That makes everybody criminals for something that will carry on happening. I ask everybody in this Parliament to think about this issue carefully, to get away from their prejudices in the background, which will really affect them, and to vote accordingly.

It will be no surprise to anybody in the Chamber but I will be voting against the title. I believe that the intent of the bill would be indicated by the “Society Reform Bill”, rather than the Prostitution Law Reform Bill. A lot has been said tonight about hidden agendas, and I suggest there could well be a hidden agenda behind even the title of this bill. When we look at the bill and what it is trying to do, and what it is actually going to achieve, it is not about really improving the lives of prostitutes in this country. It is about trying to change society’s attitude towards prostitution. It wants to reform society’s attitude. Although we have heard some speakers earlier say we should be tolerant and accepting of what is done between consenting adults, it is amazing how often they then turn round and say we are bigoted because we have a moral stand on something; that somehow or other we are out of line. All the tolerance goes out of the window. Suddenly we are the ones with baggage, we are the ones with childhood hang-ups. But actually we are the ones who are fighting for something that is very, very important.

I have not heard anybody throughout this whole debate, since I joined the Justice and Electoral Committee, show me any evidence of anywhere in the world where liberalisation of prostitution laws has resulted in protection for children under age; where it has resulted in healthier, happier, and more wholesome prostitutes. The evidence simply does not exist.

What is really the situation in New Zealand right now with prostitution? I heard many times in the select committee that there were 8,000 prostitutes in New Zealand. That figure has been quoted by the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective on many, many occasions. Yet tonight I heard Tim Barnett say there are 5,000 prostitutes. I do not know what has happened to 3,000 prostitutes in the last few weeks, but I rather suspect that it is because we have begun to realise that 8,000 prostitutes in this country puts us at the highest per capita rate of prostitution of anywhere in the world; that suddenly there has been a recognition by those who are in favour of this bill, that they need to shrink that number in order to avoid that label.

If we have 8,000 prostitutes, then we have a ratio of 0.2 percent per head of population. Holland, which is known as the most liberal nation in the world with regard to prostitution, as has been said already, has a ratio of 0.16 percent. Nobody in his or her right mind would say, on a visit to Holland, that the prostitution situation there is healthy and wholesome, and has resulted in no exploitation of women or that it has managed to protect children from getting involved in under-age prostitution.

In fact, I spoke recently to the president of the Police Association, who has made a personal trip to Holland to study the situation, and he came back convinced that if we follow the direction that is outlined in this bill we will end up with a situation very similar to that which exists in Holland. The only nation I have been able to discover that has anything like a positive move with regard to prostitution is Sweden, which has a ratio of only 0.03 percent per head of population. Sweden has only 2,500 prostitutes, so that is a much, much smaller ratio than what we have in New Zealand.

We have heard a lot about the Swedish model and what it would produce. Tim Barnett has mentioned there are 500 prostitutes being trafficked into Sweden as a result of its law change—which has 80 percent approval within its population, I might add. But that 500 figure has to be taken into account with the 100,000 women who are trafficked across the borders in Europe every year. That is 100,000 women who are drawn into prostitution. These are not women who go into prostitution to make some money to help get out of a lifestyle that they do not like; these are women who are taken into slavery. I hope there will be time during this debate for me to show members a movie, in the parliamentary theatre, that is based upon the true life story of a 16-year-old woman taken from Russia and into prostitution in Sweden. Because that shows the reality of what we are talking about.

Those who are in favour of this bill, I can only describe as well-meaning but very naive people, who are putting their heads in the sand, in the hope that simply because we want something to happen, and because we pass a law for it to happen, it will happen.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk on this very important Prostitution Reform Bill, which I do not support. I do not support it because I am not convinced by any of the evidence I read anywhere in the literature that it is going to benefit either those involved in prostitution or society in general.

If one looks at the statistics surrounding the various prostitution models that are available—the decriminalisation model in New South Wales, the legalisation model in Victoria, or the Swedish model—one sees that none of them has demonstrated, over time, that there has been an overall benefit in either of the two parameters that are really important, which are those of helping the prostitutes themselves, or those involved with prostitution, or helping society in general. It is fine to call a bill a reform bill but there has to be good evidence to demonstrate that that actually will happen. The word “reform” does imply “to make better by removal of faults or errors”.

It is ironic that prostitution itself is not illegal in New Zealand, and that has come about by the fact that, I understand, Parliament has never consciously debated whether prostitution should be legal in New Zealand. It has certainly come about by a Victorian legacy that we have had and have accepted in New Zealand, but I think it is important that that actual debate does happen before we frame a bill that is likely to be enduringly successful.

The title of this bill is inappropriate because of this question of whether it truly will be reform. I have put an amendment to call this bill by a title that truly reflects its aim to decriminalise such activities as soliciting, living off the earnings of prostitution, pimping, and coercion. Consequently, I think the name should reflect what the bill purports to do. I have suggested it be called the “Decriminalisation of Prostitution and Related Activities Bill”. On any of the criteria that are stated in the aims of this bill I cannot see any objective evidence of reform actually being achieved.

I shall go through those five aims. One is protecting children from exploitation in relation to prostitution. Certainly, the present law does protect them, and I do not think there is any extra protection that this bill affords.

Secondly, there is the aim of creating an environment that is conducive to public health, and this clearly is hugely important. I pay tribute to the AIDS Foundation and those involved in the campaign in New Zealand to bring about the safe-sex message. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that I can see that this bill will improve that situation. I would very much like to see that happen.

Consequently, I have also put a second amendment, in anticipation of this bill going through, that it be tested in 5 years’ time. One of the strengths of this bill is that there is a monitoring mechanism, and that is very important. We want to know objectively in New Zealand, if this bill is enacted, whether the situation is improved. If it is not, then the legislation should be scrapped in those circumstances. The second amendment I have put is that this bill, if it is enacted, will expire 5 years after the day on which it receives the royal assent unless a majority of the House of Representatives resolves otherwise.

There is an onus on the committee that is to monitor this bill to ensure that it does its job very thoroughly, in terms of both the benefits for those involved in the sex industry, and the benefits or otherwise for society. I would be very appreciative if the Committee supported those two amendments.

I support the title of the Prostitution Reform Bill—“reform”, as my colleague Mr Fairbrother mentioned before, being the operative word. Any reform of this particular industry has been a long time coming. I will speak on a quite narrow aspect and perspective that I have had in my experience in this industry.

This evening I have heard people talk of coercion, of gangs and their relationship with prostitution, and so on. People might be interested to know that I would say that in my day, in the late 1970s—in 1976—the State inadvertently coerced a person such as me into becoming a prostitute. That was because I was a transsexual. In those days society’s attitudes towards people like me were certainly not as kind as they are now, or as considerate, I might add. In that time, when I applied for the unemployment benefit I was told to take my skirt off, put my trousers back on, and go out there and get a job. I refused to do that. I stood up for my own human rights and said: “No, I am a transsexual. This is me.”

No employer would take me on in that particular mode. I found that if I wanted to earn a living as the person I wanted to be, I had to go into the sex industry. It seemed about the only job that was available to me to earn a so-called honest dollar. I started off in the strip clubs. Because of the lousy pay that our boss paid us at the time—something like $35 a week—we were expected to supplement our income by picking up clients in the strip club itself, and to increase our income in that way. That was my first taste of it. It was not a very pleasant affair, at all. I soon came to realise that that would be my lot for some time. It was the only area of society where I could participate, and feel like I was part of a group of people who were, in a “like minority” kind of way, marginalised by society. We bonded, in some respects, in order to support ourselves.

If I were to have that choice over again, I would say that this country would not tolerate the inhumanity of enabling someone like me at that particular time to have no particular choice in the matter. It was wrong. “Reform” is the operative word. I never want to see that happen again to anybody. I might add that I was about 17 years old when all of this started to happen—under the age limit, in terms of the protections we want to put in this bill, and I fully support them. It is strange that the State in its own way at that time, inadvertently and unknowingly, helped a person like me into the sex industry. It was wrong. I never wanted to go into it, but there I was.

What did I find there? I found a marginalised society that cared about a person like me, and we had to stick together because the rest of society abhorred us. Yet, strangely enough, the clientele who came along to seek our services were ordinary men, predominantly, but women sometimes, who sought the services of a person such as myself at that time. These were fathers, uncles, and grandfathers—ordinary New Zealand citizens who felt the need to access this kind of service. I know I will hear somebody say that this is outrageous, but I expect that in some cases our service protected family relationships, because some people have slightly different preferences, in terms of their sexual activity, from what they might find acceptable within their home. They found an outlet for it through the sex industry.

I support the fact that the industry must be made much more healthy and much more appropriate. If that kind of activity is to proceed—and it does, and it always will—then we have to give people, both the client and the prostitute, the best chance of health and safety.

One of the aspects of tikanga Māori that I most admire—and I hope the Committee will let me try to explain this in the best terms I know how—is the concept that we move forward into the future by backing into the future. My understanding is that the thought is that we make decisions about our future from that which we can learn from what has gone before, and I admire that.

The sponsor’s intention is to bring about, through this legislation, harm minimisation. However, if we are to look at what has gone before, then we need to look to the experience of Victoria, Australia. In fact, as time has passed since 1982, with the Victoria legislation, the state has been embroiled in a series of ongoing legislative tweaking to redress the consequences of the supposed reform. It has had to bring in licensing and local planning controls, to limit the size of brothels, to outlaw advertising, to establish a prostitution control board, to register prostitutes, to have mandatory health checks, to criminalise street prostitution, and to have mandatory disclosure to landlords. The Victoria publication the Age newspaper reported in 1999 that there had been an increase in the number of legal brothels from 40 to 94 in just a decade. This number needs to be added to the 84 escort agencies. However, the real growth in Victoria was in the illegal sector, which trebled in 12 months and outnumbered the legal members and establishments of the industry. For instance, Victoria now stages the annual Sexpo, which illustrates how acceptable the industry is now. It is reported that women in booths at the Sexpo will sell their services of a kind for the same price as one can buy a pottle of frozen yoghurt at the next stand.

The misbelief that, once decriminalised, women in the industry will be able to choose their own working conditions and their own clients, and have industry health and safety standards in place are misplaced. The truth is that it has become much more difficult in Victoria for women to set up in business for themselves, due to the illegal monopolisation of the industry by brothel-owners. For instance, the average going rate on the market for brothels is A$1 million. Mandatory disclosure means that prostitutes setting up in business face exorbitant costs, due to inflated rentals. Brothel managers and owners demand anywhere between 50 to 60 percent of the takings, making it now a fact that it is very difficult for prostitutes to earn a living.

Safety has been reduced. Jocelyn Snow of the Prostitutes Collective of Victoria, in her study of the impact of legislation on the conditions of exploitation faced by prostitutes, found “The worst thing was the clients—the arrogance, the smell, the violence, the demands. One in five clients still request and get unsafe sex.” The 1998 study conducted by the Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, done in conjunction with the Prostitutes Collective of Victoria, stated that 40 percent of men in the study did not use condoms when exploiting prostituted women.

Street prostitution was very much in the news during 2001. Residents in the main prostitution area of St Kilda demanded action from the state Government because the prostituted women were being abused in the porches and gardens of St Kilda residents. A residents’ spokeswomen said that there is now an open-air, uncontrolled, unmanaged, all-day brothel.

Legislation that was intended to eliminate organised crime from the sex industry has, in fact, had the reverse effect. It has brought with it an explosion in the trafficking of women into prostitution by organised crime. Convicted criminals, fronted by supposedly more reputable people, remain in business.

I do not usually speak on issues such as this. On conscience issues I usually cast my vote and quietly get on with life. I have thought about this bill quite a lot, and I want to say that, in my 12 years as an MP, I have never had any representation from the prostitutes who, obviously, live in my electorate—because if there are 8,000 of them, I should have approximately 120 or 130 living in my electorate. I have never had any representation from them for any reform or protection, etc.

This is a moral issue, and I do not mean that in the sense often used by people of the “moral high ground”, or the “moral right”, or the “moral left”, or all of those things. I mean it purely in terms of what we believe as individuals to be right or wrong, and what we believe to be acceptable, reasonable, and a position of common sense—what we feel comfortable with as individuals.

At the age of 18, under this bill, people will legally be allowed to have sex for sale. That, of course, happens—daily. But we see in society the very great difficulty that even publicans, to take a simple situation, have in determining who is 18 when people come to the bar and ask to buy alcohol. The same applies in supermarkets, clubs, etc. Surely, then, it would be an absolute defence to be able to say: “I thought she was 18, your honour.” It would have to be proven that there was intent to have sex with someone under 18, in terms of the guilt associated with having sex with an underage prostitute.

It seems to me that we have a simple dilemma. We have to consider that if we go through the process of what we call reform, and make it more acceptable to have prostitution out there, we then have to be accepting of the fact that, should this bill succeed, a private training enterprise or, indeed, a State-owned training provider would be in a position to train people to work in the sex industry—because, obviously, there may be some merit in being properly trained to be in jobs in the sex industry. Perhaps we might have apprenticeships. Perhaps we might have courses for careers advisers. Perhaps we might have unit standards, student loans, an industry training authority, national certificate qualifications, etc., etc. Some people might think that is a bit far-fetched, but equally, people in the era when New Zealand had dry areas would have seen it as quite far-fetched for there to be hospitality courses in how to make cocktails, prepare drinks, and wait on people, etc. It is not far-fetched; it is, perhaps, just a few years distant.

Ms Dianne Yates’ amendments to deal equally with the solicitor and the solicited should be supported if the bill continues, because we are then in the position of having equal treatment.

I have not come to this from some sort of high moral ground approach. I have tried to come to it from what I believe in my gut. As someone who was a school counsellor for a few years and a high school teacher for a number of years, should a student have come to me as a counsellor and said: “Mr Duynhoven, I have decided that I want to be working in the sex industry.”, what would my advice have been, and how could I have defended my position if prostitution were seen to be legally acceptable and reasonable? I am not as entertaining or as engaging as Mr Williamson or, indeed, others who have spoken in this debate. I have tried to approach it from a very rational and reasonable approach. I have children, as many in this House do. Like many of us, I would be horrified if one of my children—either male or female—said: “Dad, this is what I want to do with my life.”, or “Dad, I can make some quick money doing this, and buy the car, the boat, the house, or whatever it is I want.” Where do I stand, in my position relative to that child, if prostitution is acceptable in society? I have heard the arguments. It is a difficult position for many people to be in, but on balance I have decided not to support this bill.

I have listened to this debate in the hope that it would indicate a rational way through what is becoming an increasingly complex set of questions. When I spoke in the second reading debate, I said that I had found it very hard to make a decision, even after sitting through all the evidence and chairing the select committee for the second stage. I have now been through the amendments that are proposed, and, recognising that this is the title debate, have tried to think what it is that is likely to emerge from that process overall.

I indicated that I would oppose the bill in the form in which it was reported back, because it did not do what it said it would do. It was not the simple decriminalisation that people were promised. It did not rationalise the law, as could have easily been done, since prostitution was already legal and all we needed to do was to get rid of the anomalies in solicitation. Solicitation could have been confined to hard sell, aggressive, interfering sale, and we could have left the pimping law pretty much in place. As Mr Goff said, our anti-trafficking law is already a form of anti-pimping law, and maybe that could be rationalised. It could have dealt with the underage problem with more practical remedies or dealt with the mechanics of enforcement of law against child prostitution. It does none of these things.

So I look at the bill and I look at the amendments to see how it has been fixed. When going through the problems, the first one I identify is that the bill, as a reform for prostitution, is patently a bid for legitimisation, or normalisation, or destigmatisation of an activity that most people believe is undesirable. I listened to Mr Williamson and to his comparison with homosexual law reform, and I was confirmed in my fear. I myself supported homosexual law reform—in fact, I think I was pretty influential in the speeches made by one or more of the MPs who supported it. But I did not expect then that what has happened would occur.

What we have seen, as a result, is that homosexuality has moved from being something that was unfairly and improperly treated by the criminal law to becoming a privileged status—for sexual orientation to be added into human rights law. Although I can discriminate against rugby players if I do not like rugby, or I can discriminate against occupational groups—students, social workers, or even returned soldiers—if I do not like their values or their views, I am not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, however much I might think homosexuality is undesirable. Here, of course, I am using “I” as “one”. What is happening here, and we can see it in the definitions in this bill, is that prostitution is redefined as commercial sexual services and prostitutes are redefined as sex workers, and the objective is normalisation or destigmatisation.

The next stage of course, as I think is clearly signalled in Mr Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper, is for prostitution to be treated by the law as an activity that it is verboten to criticise. I say that because Mr Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper recognises that local authorities who exercise the powers he wants to give them, could be prevented from doing that in terms of the courts holding that it was an invalid form of breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think that is a signal to this Committee that what is happening here is not what the bill promises.

The bill is not about protecting human rights, protecting people from improper police practices, or protecting them from the inability to enforce their contracts and the other disabilities that are presently attendant on prostitution. The bill goes the other way. After all the amendments we have seen, the bill still has no practical means of enforcing health and safety rules, for example. There are provisions for inspectors, but the police must get warrants if they want to check on someone’s age. The inspectors may not enter homes. It is clearly contemplated by this bill that the preferred mode of operating a prostitution business is from home—by happy little cooperatives of self-employed prostitutes. Mr Goff’s bill goes further in that direction. He exempts the health and safety provisions. They are not to apply to self-employed prostitutes in brothels of fewer than four workers. Even the rhetoric about health and safety in that area has been proved very quickly to be hollow, by the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice, presumably with the support of the Labour Party. Labour members on the Justice and Electoral Committee made it very plain that their voting was on a party basis.

I also look at the provisions relating to the police and their ability to enforce the under-age provisions. Mr Fairbrother, when speaking about Mr Goff’s amendments, said he was not aware of anyone being prosecuted for the offences that were put into the Crimes Act only a year and a half ago. Mr Goff made a big play of the fact that he had put these offences into our law already. Why have there been no prosecutions, when the police told us that a good chunk of the prostitution at the moment is carried out by under-age workers? What is going to change, when this bill deliberately makes it necessary for the police to get a search warrant before they can even enter premises and check on someone’s age? The select committee rejected suggestions that young workers should be obliged to carry identification. We have made a law that expects identification to be carried for drinking, but not for selling one’s body. It may well be that there should be identification for neither, but I cannot stand the insincerity that goes with a bill that purports to be a reform and instead sets out to create a smokescreen and lays the ground for a privileged status.

I look also at this as bad law. It is a strict liability offence for a newspaper to accept an advertisement from a 17-year-old prostitute. The newspaper has no means of protecting itself. If the woman lies, if she gives false identification, if she induces the newspaper to take the advertisement, by any trick whatsoever, she is utterly immune from prosecution. The newspaper has no way of protecting itself. That is a deliberate decision in this bill, and the select committee considered it at length.

There is a provision in the bill, which was intended to be protective, that says that welfare benefits cannot be denied by reason of a refusal to take work as a prostitute. Of course it is redundant, now that Mr Maharey has abolished the work test, but at the time that we were considering this provision we also considered whether it might not be a backward or unintended inducement to prostitution. A very easy way of avoiding this stand-down would be to go from one form of employment to prostitution, perhaps for one night, and then one could not be required to go back to work. That possibility was pointed out at the drafting stage. Various drafting solutions were offered but they were rejected by the majority on the committee, because those members have no intention of seeing this law work in its terms. They want this bill to be a smokescreen.

We had another similar debate in the select committee. Drafting was done for us in relation to protecting neighbourhoods from concentrations of kerb-crawlers. Mr Goff’s bill deals with brothels. Brothels generated no complaints. I do not think there were any complaints to our committee about the location of brothels, but there was serious complaint about concentrations of street prostitutes, and the needles, the noise, the drinking, the broken glass, and the criminal element that was attracted by street workers. Mr Goff’s amendments do absolutely nothing about that, and the committee rejected any provisions to deal with it. Mr Mapp’s amendments may deal with that, or may give some power to do so, but not directly.

It is my intention to support the passage of this legislation through the House. I do so not because I wish to condone the actions of those who partake of this industry, but nor do I wish to condemn them. I believe that it is up to every individual to determine what fits within his or her definition of morality and values. I do not believe, and will never believe, that the Government can legislate for morality; that is for each and every individual. But I see this bill as providing equity to a law that is currently very inequitable. While I respect the fact that it is not perfect, as many speakers have said tonight, the facts of life are that no legislation that passes through this House will ever be perfect.

But I do want to make a couple of observations and, if I may, make a couple of statements. For those who have spoken in the Chamber tonight about the terrible impact that this legislation will have on the sex industry in New Zealand, I have this message: “Get real!”. Eight thousand people work in the sex industry in New Zealand. If, on average, they have three clients a night, my calculation is that that is 24,000 people. If they work, say, just 5 days a week, that is 100,000 people. The people who use the industry are largely men. In my opinion, there are about 1 million eligible men in New Zealand, which tells me that 10 percent of the current population of eligible New Zealand males is going to brothels. That is a pretty big number. I cannot see that number expanding terribly, and I will tell the Committee why. If this bill becomes law, I will not be skipping home to my lovely wife and telling her: “Just before I came home tonight I popped into the local brothel, because it is legal now, Honey.” She will have a message for me, and it will not be a very nice one. I also say that just because homosexuality has been legalised in this country, I am not gay; nor will I ever be. It is not something I am interested in. I live my life by the morality and values I set for myself, not by those this Parliament sets, and I believe that is the way others should live also.

I have lived in five countries and visited about 50 during my business career. The sex industry is alive and well, and nothing anyone has done has managed to change that. In my opinion, we as parliamentarians have to do two things. First, we have to try to make the industry as safe as we possibly can for those who work in it. I could not care less about those who use the industry; it is their own choice, but that is what we have to do for those who work in the industry.

Secondly, we have to do the most we can to stop the most vulnerable from being involved. I believe that if we adopt something like the Swedish model and the view that we can somehow drive this industry underground, the youngest and most vulnerable will still be involved. They probably become involved because they come from broken families. They probably do have a hurt past, and I wish they were not there. As parliamentarians, I wish we could do something to stop that, and something to help them. But I just do not believe that this problem will somehow stop because we do not pass this legislation. Again, I have this message for those people who have told us that if we legalise this industry, we might as well legalise drugs, burglary, and murder. It is: “Get real!” They are crimes with victims; this is a crime largely without a victim.

The last thing I have to say is that I am not a terribly religious person, but I found it pretty hard to take when of the 220 letters and 123 emails I had, those who opposed the legislation came largely from the Church. I simply look at the history of the Church and the reasons behind the massive financial settlements for crimes that have taken place, and it looks a bit hypocritical to me.

Finally, I wish to speak in support of Phil Goff’s amendments. I do so because I respect the rights of those who go to these establishments. That is why I am voting for the bill. I also respect the rights of the great many New Zealanders who do not want to use the industry, and who do not want to see it in their faces every 5 seconds. Local governments should be able to control where brothels are established, so that they are not set up all over New Zealand, and all over suburbia. We do not want to give people the message that somehow we are giving the green light to a red-light industry; nor do we want to set ourselves up as the Bangkok of the South Pacific. However, we live in the year 2003, and it is my opinion that we need to move into it.

I rise to speak again on the title, and again I will be voting against it. My reason is that I do not believe that it truly encapsulates what the bill will do. The word “reform” has within it an implication that it will improve the situation—that we will be heading in a better direction. That is all we who are opposing this legislation are asking for. We are asking for an assurance that the lofty aims of the bill will actually be achieved through this legislation.

When I first joined the Justice and Electoral Committee to begin looking into this bill after it had been to select committees in previous Parliaments, Tim Barnett told me that it was based upon the New South Wales decriminalisation model. The first question I asked was whether the committee had gone to New South Wales to study what had happened there. The answer was that no one had, but that Tim Barnett and Dr Wayne Mapp had made personal journeys to look at the situation in that state. Just recently, I received the itinerary of their trip, and I understand they spent approximately 2 days in New South Wales looking at the situation there. This House is about to vote seriously on this legislation—and I genuinely hope that we are able to defeat it—yet in spite of the nearest model to the one proposed being only about 1,200 miles away, in a place where a decriminalisation model has been in place for the last 10 years at least, no one, apart from two willing select committee members, has spent more than 2 days there. I find that staggering

It is true—and Tim Barnett has mentioned this before—that there is a great deal of debate about what is really happening in New South Wales. We, of course, promote certain statistics that we have come in contact with, and there are people we have spoken to. The Sydney Morning Herald has written considerable articles about the real situation in New South Wales, and others with another view say that all is wonderful and rosy for prostitutes across the channel. All I ask the Committee today is that if we are genuinely serious about the consequences of this bill upon New Zealand society, we ought to be stopping right now and sending a proper delegation to New South Wales to investigate, for a period longer than 2 days, what is really taking place there.

Other people also went to New South Wales, including the journalist from Television One who went there to do an Assignment programme. The evidence they brought back and put on television in New Zealand did not convince me in any way that there was an improvement in the lives of prostitutes in New South Wales; nor was there any improvement in the number of under-age people getting involved in prostitution; nor was any cleaner or less criminal an element involved in the prostitution industry in New South Wales.

Others have said that we are attacking this issue only from the moral perspective, but that is not true. We are simply asking for legitimate evidence that this bill will achieve something of the aims it purports to have. I do not therefore support the name “Prostitution Reform Bill” for this legislation. No matter how we feel about the desire for prostitutes to have a better life, the desire to have clean and safe sex, and so on, we cannot categorically say that this bill will achieve anything like what it aims to achieve. I think a better title would be the “Expansion of Prostitution Bill”, because this bill is not just about prostitutes themselves; it is about the expansion of the prostitution industry through decriminalising pimping and brothel-keeping.

If the Prostitutes Collective had come to Parliament and said that some things were going wrong in massage parlours and that they faced difficulties because the only law that made their activity in any way illegal was the law that stated that it was against the law to solicit in a public place, and that they would like to see that law changed, then I might have been able to come around to saying that we could do something about that. It would be a very minor tweak to the existing law. But this bill goes much further than that. It is good news for pimps. In fact, the title ought to be the “Good News for Pimps and Brothel-keepers Bill”, because they are the ones who will be the beneficiaries of this legislation. Prostitution always involves the exploitation of those who are involved in the sex industry, because it is the brothel-keepers who make more money by far than they do.

I rise very briefly to speak to this bill. I want to support it. I have taken quite a long time to reach that decision, spending about 2 years listening, talking, and working in my own electorate, which is Wellington Central. The reasons I want to support it are twofold. First, I support it for reasons of the health and safety of the workers involved in that particular job. I want to support them, and ensure that their health and safety are secure. Many times I hear people saying that they would not like their child to be involved in the sex industry. If a child of mine were involved, my greatest hope would be that they were safe and healthy. I kind of share the member’s opinion that the morality or judgment of that work is for that person alone.

The second comment I want to make comes from people in Wellington’s large civil service, who have said: “I would not be in this job if I had ever been convicted of the work I had done previously.” In other words, had they been charged as a prostitute—a profession they had worked in earlier in their lives—they would not have been able to change their careers. I would like to say to those people who profess Christianity that the ability to change the direction of one’s life, if one wants to, is incredibly important—and I am not making any moral judgement about that. A criminal conviction for prostitution is not a great thing to have on one’s record if one is going for a job in the public service. It is a crime at the moment, but it is not a crime that hurts other people.

The last thing I want to say is that I did one of those things that MPs do in their electorates, where they send out letters to people, and most of them put them in the bin. But over 800 people, I think, replied. About 500 said they supported decriminalisation, about 100 said they had no opinion whatsoever, and about 160 were against. Because this is a conscience issue, I do not vote on those numbers alone, but I found it interesting.

I have been trolling, and working, and thinking about this issue over the last 2 or 3 years. I went through this very strong feminist stage, thinking oh my God, this is dreadful; here am I a strong feminist, and what am I doing? Feminists wrote to me quite strongly, but some of the most brilliant, human, wonderful letters I have had, and visits to my office, have been from prostitutes. Some of them might have been members of the Prostitutes Collective, or whatever, but they have boosted my belief in the humanity of people, and in their goodness and humour. I want to use this opportunity tonight to say thank you. There has not been one miserable thing, or one negative, closed object. It has been warm, and human, and loving, and I want to thank those people, because I admire them for that.

I support this bill, not for any health and safety reasons and not for the protection of prostitutes, but because it is an issue of individual freedom and personal liberty. This bill is not without its flaws, but I believe that we can change that when we have a change of Government.

I made a deliberate decision not to have a knee-jerk reaction to this bill. Because there is a personal vote on this bill I explored all areas of it, just like the member who spoke before me. There were many issues to consider. I had to consider things like whether I want to live in a country where sex is reduced to a mere commodity, and, let us face it, having sex is not the same as just going out to buy a hamburger or to fill the car with petrol. Actually, it is already legal to buy sex, but if the prostitute knocks on the window of a car when it pulls up at the traffic lights and offers sex for money, then he or she is breaking the law, and I do not think that is fair. People have asked—and I have asked this myself—whether I would want a son or daughter of mine to be a prostitute. Of course we would not want that. There are a number of jobs, though, that we would not want our sons and daughters to do, but we do not pass laws banning those jobs.

There has been much lobbying of me by people who have said this bill should not be passed because it is anti-family legislation, and will lead to break-ups of families. But there are many things in this society that are anti-family. Extramarital affairs are incredibly destructive of families, but do we pass laws to ban extramarital affairs? Research has shown that when people live in de facto relationships the children are at much more risk of the parents breaking up than if the parents are married. I have been in a de facto relationship for 27 years now, with four children. Are we to pass laws to force me to get married, because research has shown that the relationship I live in is anti-family?

As I say, essentially this bill comes down to an issue of individual liberty, and I say people have a right to be wrong. They have a right to make the wrong choices. I personally do find prostitution morally repugnant, because it reduces that most private and personal exchange to a mere commercial transaction. But the important thing is that I do not have the right to force my personal or moral views on to anyone else, and on to people who are not physically harming anyone. It is not, as John Key said, the State’s role to legislate for morality. The State is there to protect people’s freedoms and that, as I said, includes the freedom to fail, and the freedom to say and do things that I might find personally abhorrent. But as long as there is no initiation of force, it is no business of mine to force other people to obey what I think is my personal credo. If people do not like prostitution, they should recognise it is not mandatory. They should look away, and I believe they should stop trying to force their personal views on to everybody else.

I have been listening to this debate, and to be honest, I am a pastor, so I am a Christian. I am a man of God, so therefore I am a shepherd of people, and I must commend the various speakers from the various viewpoints on this bill, because this has been an excellent debate. I do appreciate the various viewpoints that have come into it. But I have learnt that in life there is relationship between cause and effect, and I am very concerned at the breakdown of the family unit in this nation.

I want to address the issue of prostitution from a man’s perspective, because I am the father of two boys and two girls. I know that sex is wonderful; it is one of my favourite pastimes. I love sex. But I have learnt that whereas I, as a man, love sex, my wife enjoys lovemaking, and there is a vast difference between the two. I am probably more concerned, in the society I live in, for my boys breaking into immorality than for my girls doing so, because a man is attracted by the gaze of his eye. That which he sees with his eye attracts him, so that is why, when we see girls in the industry we are discussing, we should not be surprised that they are dressed to attract men. Women, on the other hand, love to be loved, and unfortunately, because of the moral decline in our nation, that is an art that we men are beginning to lose.

I have dealt with many girls who had gone into prostitution, as they have endeavoured to come out of it, and I appreciate Georgina Beyer’s honesty about the memories and the pictures that are in her mind. I have a past life that I am not proud of, and I also know what it is to live with pictures in my mind of things I am no longer proud of or pleased to have been involved with. To change the pictures in one’s mind is extremely difficult, and can be extremely painful.

This is a conscience vote, and I appreciate that. So I looked up the definition of “conscience” in the dictionary. Firstly, the dictionary states that it is a moral sense of right and wrong. Of course, I realise that many people will have a problem right there, because I have heard that said. But prostitution is a moral issue, whatever way we want to look at it. Many people are of the opinion that nothing is morally right or wrong any more. In fact, even the mention of the word “moral” sets alarm bells ringing for them. However, I did not write the dictionary, so let us look at some other definitions that may be less offensive to them. We see the second definition states that “conscience” is a consciousness that one’s actions are right or wrong. To me, that goes way beyond what may be a personal viewpoint or preference. To me, it means that when I am really honest with myself in thinking the situation through, in the case we are currently dealing with I would have to ask myself whether this industry would be good for my wife, daughter, or granddaughter to be involved in.

Many of those who are supporting this bill say they would not like their own daughters or granddaughters to go into the prostitution industry. Therefore, if that is what they are saying and they are truly going on the basis of their conscience, they would have to vote against this bill. I think that is an important issue, because so often in this world we come to matters of opinion. As a Christian I am thankful that I do have a God in heaven who has given me an instruction manual that clearly lays out the principles for life. He is not one who restricts because he is oppressive. Totally to the contrary of that, he is one who gives graciously. But just as even in this House we have a Speaker to keep it in order, and if we chose to ignore that authority figure we would just end up with chaos, so in the world we live in there is a moral code to protect us from ourselves and our own fleshly desires, which I personally know can be very, very strong. The sex drive in men is one of the strongest drives we have to fight against, and that is why many men, with pornography on the Internet and all those other things, are having a great amount of trouble.

I want to take a short call in support of the bill. I do so on this basis. This bill is not, as Deborah Coddington would have us believe, about personal responsibility and liberty. Personal responsibility and liberty are about having a range of opportunities and choosing options on an informed basis, when one has the capacity to participate in them. Those people who are afflicted by working in this industry, in terms of prostitution, are often exploited and vulnerable. They often come from communities that are easily exploited in terms of their social and economic class in society, and in particular are Māori. But, lately, and more in terms of numbers, they have been Asian. Those issues are of great to concern to us.

I wanted to agree with Paul Adams with regard to male folk’s love of sex. I do think that it is reciprocated, but I could not mislead the House because I cannot possibly talk about that from experience. I just think that.

I support the bill and the amendments in the name of my senior colleague the Minister of Justice, the Hon Phil Goff, on this basis. I come from a family in which I was brought up by a very strong Catholic mother, and I went to Catholic schools. So when a paper is tabled in the House from my own bishops, that is a very clear steer to me. Notwithstanding that, I do not accept that paper, for a bunch of reasons. I say we should come clean about what occurs here. Does prostitution happen? Of course it does.

Sandra Goudie: Are you sure?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I am sure, and I will come to that right now.

John Key: You are not making a personal statement, are you?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: There is an issue about a rite of passage, for want of a better term. Whether one has been to a mate’s stag party, or wherever one may have been with one’s mates in one’s teenage years—and I appreciate that Murray McCully has never been to any of those joints—I want to say that I have been to them. I just acknowledge, in terms of my growing up and the communities that I mixed within, that those things have occurred.

Stephen Franks: Did you inhale?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I have inhaled. Bill Clinton might not have inhaled, but I think a number of us have. I just want to put that caveat on my position.

My only concern, in supporting the amendments in the name of my senior colleagues Phil Goff and Lianne Dalziel, is that there are not enough, for want of a better term, belts and braces around the support of the vulnerable—[Interruption]—and John Key knows more about those than me. My concern is that there are not enough protection mechanisms in place for those who are exploited and vulnerable, and who may see prostitution as the only option available to them. In the event that this bill is supported to the extent that it goes through the House, we need to put in a lot of effort into ensuring that there are enough support mechanisms and groups in our communities for our womenfolk, in particular—but of late there has been a larger incidence of young males—who have difficulties. It is very important that this legislation is not seen as the legitimisation of the only opportunity those people have, in terms of turning a buck. I say it is very important that we put in place a number of support mechanisms to ensure that the exploited and the vulnerable are not pursued to the extent that prostitution is the only way they have of getting out of their difficulties. To that extent, I will be supporting this bill.

When I came down to the Chamber to listen to the debate this evening I was not really intending to speak, but I felt almost compelled to do so and, having got the call, obviously I will do so. This debate has been something of a confession, and other members have talked about their previous lives—some quite explicitly. I guess it is not appropriate for me to discuss the prostitution industry because, frankly, I know little or nothing about it. I am perhaps loath to admit that; perhaps I should have done some research on the issue. But I have, like every other member, received a huge amount of correspondence from people on both sides of the argument. I came down to the Chamber this evening with no preconceived ideas whatsoever. We have heard from those with very strong religious convictions about the morality side of this issue, and that must be respected. We have also heard a more liberal attitude expressed by members who recognise that times change and society must move on. I listened to that, especially given my connection to the ACT party, because we see ourselves as classical liberals. So I face this issue with some real dilemma.

In thinking about some of the expressions that have been used in the Chamber, I recall that when we watched movies we used to refer to prostitutes as scarlet women. In those days, and even in biblical times, prostitutes were driven from society. Yet clearly society had a real need for those women even 2,000 or 3,000 years ago. Of course, our society in New Zealand has changed from the earlier days of our establishment in this country, to a time where prostitution has become accepted. It has become, if one likes, a normal part of society, even if it has not had legislative acceptance.

But what concerns me more than anything about this bill results from my experience as a member of our society. I think back to some of the real debates we have had in this House, or that others have had in this House well before my time, and remember how the particular social policy that was put forward, voted on, and accepted by this House has been an unmitigated disaster. I think about the royal commission on welfare, and about how the domestic purposes benefit was to be a marvellous example and a lesson to the world on how we could help people—especially women—in real need. Of course, who amongst us would deny that that is a very sensible thing to do? Yet we can look at the explosion in the number of women on the domestic purposes benefit now. I am not drawing a comparison in terms of numbers; it is just a reality that sometimes in this Parliament we get it wrong.

On another issue, I think of how we spoke on, and argued at length about, the Resource Management Act and said it would be wonderful legislation for the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think of how we lowered the drinking age for teenagers, allowed alcohol in supermarkets, and introduced alcopops—lolly water. That has been an unmitigated disaster. Whether Parliament is prepared to admit to that does not really matter; to me, that seems to be the reality. So I look at what Parliament and our politicians have done over the years in the area of social change and, frankly, I see far too many messes—and somebody else has to pick up the pieces after we get it so very wrong.

I will be voting against the bill, not out of any moral indignation or religious belief—far from it. But I just do not believe that we have heard enough argument or reason to change a status quo that I believe most of our society is quite happy to accept—albeit in an imperfect way. The status quo seems to be what, to me, anyway, is acceptable at this time.

We heard tonight a very good definition of the classical libertarian philosophy of life from both John Key and Deborah Coddington, which is basically that adults consenting freely should be able to do whatever they like, and it is no one else’s business.

I could not listen to them speaking in that way without my mind going back to the national values summit, which was convened here in Wellington by UNESCO last October. I went to that summit, as did a number of other MPs from a variety of parties in this Chamber. It was a most interesting day. UNESCO has made a real commitment to advance the whole cause of character and values education in the education curriculum at schools all over this planet. It has decided it is the most important component in contemporary education. On that day a number of very prominent New Zealanders addressed that summit: Dame Silvia Cartwright, Celia Lashlie, Apryll Parata, Gregory Fortuin, and Rosalind Hursthouse, the professor of philosophy from Auckland University. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. The very loud conversation going on next to me is very distracting.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I call for order down at the back of the Chamber, please.

GORDON COPELAND: Thank you. Those members were breaking my line of thinking. I would like to have the opportunity to express this very clearly.

During that day, with all those prominent New Zealanders there, during the discussion that went on about character education and so forth, some things emerged very clearly. The first thing was that young people are not convinced by argument and teaching as much as by example. There was a very strong call from that conference to ask schoolteachers whether they are giving a good example to the children they are teaching, and to ask New Zealand parents whether they are giving a good example to their children. Suddenly, to my surprise, the conference began to point its finger at this House of Parliament, and it began to ask very strongly what sort of example we are delivering to the young people of this nation. Young people are saying we should walk the talk. They do not want to listen to our talk; they want to look at our walk. I ask every person here tonight to re-examine his or her conscience, and to ask himself or herself this question: what message is the passage of this bill delivering to the young people of this country? I will not answer that question for members, but I want them to ask it of themselves.

There was discussion in this Chamber that somehow or other a vote for this bill would be a vote for the moral right. I say to members that there is no such thing. There is morality and there is immorality. Other people in this debate have said that we cannot legislate for morality. What on earth do we do every time we pass a law? I cannot think of a law that has been passed since I came here to Parliament that does not have a moral dimension. That slogan about not being able to legislate for morality makes me think that people think that morality is just sex. Well, it is not. Morality is a very, very broad definition of a whole lot of things. People can do doctorate degrees in morality. I ask members to believe me when I say we are legislating for morality every single day in this Chamber. I do not believe that that argument holds any water, whatsoever.

I would also like to add this point: I was one of those who supported homosexual law reform. At that point in time in this nation there was a groundswell of opinion asking that this House no longer consider people who were engaged in homosexual acts as criminals, and that it stop sending them to jail. I was one of those people who said that that was wrong and needed to stop.

In respect of this bill, which aims to decriminalise pimping and brothel-keeping, in particular, I ask where the groundswell of opinion is in this country that specifically asks this House to decriminalise those two things. I have looked at the submissions that have come here to the Justice and Electoral Committee with some care, and I have seen that a lot of those submissions were about things like safety, health, not stigmatising prostitutes, and so forth.

I rise to speak to the short title of the Prostitution Reform Bill, and to reaffirm that I will be voting against it. I stand as a Māori woman in this House, not purporting to represent solely the interests of Māori women or solely the interests of Māori, but as someone who comes from a community that discusses issues like prostitution and the impact of alcohol reform on our communities, and the things that they want to see happen.

After the last time we debated this bill, in the second reading, I went home thinking about all the contributions that had been made in this House. I looked for the Māori word for prostitution, but I could not find one. I could not find a Māori word for prostitution and that reaffirmed for me a lot of the messages I receive from a number of communities that I move in. We need our kids to have positive messages and positive affirmation of who they are as Māori. Where does prostitution fit within that picture? A lot of the debate tonight has tried to drive some moral conscience wedge between those who are for prostitution and those who are against it, but that is not what it is about. It is about how this bill will affect vulnerable communities and people whom I am a part of representing.

If I could stand in this House and say that the bill would fix up a lot of the issues surrounding problems involving young Māori in this industry, I would vote for it. But I cannot say that, because we have had contributions in this House that highlight the number of young Māori who are being prosecuted and being picked up by the police, and with or without the Prostitution Law Reform Bill that would be happening. Why? Because that is what is happening in our society. They are vulnerable. They are vulnerable not just from prostitution; they are vulnerable because of drugs and alcohol, they are vulnerable because they come from lower socio-economic groups, and they are vulnerable because they lack opportunity.

Where is the direction, in terms of this bill, for young Māori in our country? I say that it has none. We are trying to dress up this bill by saying it is about providing rights for individuals, because it does not affect groups. It does. It affects groups in far more ways than people care to comment on tonight. They will not comment on it, because they really do not want to tackle the implications or the impact that the decriminalisation of prostitution will have in communities like mine.

So I cannot vote for it. I cannot vote for a bill that, again, seeks to try to make changes in a bad way to law. I cannot vote for it passing through this House. We have a mishmash of amendments sitting on the Table that say to the Committee that prostitution is all right as long as it is “not in my backyard”. What is that saying? We are kind of saying that people can do it, but they can do it in that corner. Well, over in that corner are people whom I represent. Over in that corner are people who will always be excluded and to the side, and none of the things in this legislation will help the issues that are facing them.

It is bad law, but during the progression of this debate I will continue to advocate that it is important that when we debate the bill we recognise the impact it will have on many vulnerable communities. What are we saying there? Are we saying that we currently have the matrix of social policy and networks to support vulnerable groups and populations with existing problems of drug and alcohol abuse? No, we cannot say that. We do not have that level of support now. If we did have it now, then we would feel a little bit comforted by the fact that the decriminalisation issue would have some kind of buffer already within the social fabric or community, in terms of services provided to our communities. But we do not have that. We struggle every day with these issues, and decriminalisation of prostitution will continue to compound that.

I want to acknowledge all the contributions tonight. It is a rare opportunity for each and every individual member to say what he or she thinks. In speaking to the title of the bill, I do not support either of the two amendments offered by colleagues in this Committee. The reason is we need to ensure that, when we are talking about the aims of this bill, we acknowledge that it protects those who are already in the industry, and moves towards normalisation. I cannot support that.

I must offer my sincere compliments to the member who has just resumed her seat. I know that in the first instance she voted for this bill to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I know that she served on the select committee, and she sat there and listened intently with an open mind. She has put the case against this bill far more eloquently than I could do, and I compliment her on that.

We have heard speakers here tonight suggest that prostitution is not a victimless crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wherever prostitution has been liberalised in this world, the industry has expanded. There is plenty of evidence, if people want to go and search it out, and I invite my friend John Key to do so. The Internet is full of information. Young women in particular have been coerced and enticed into prostitution against their will. We have heard of the vulnerable people who have gone into the industry, some willingly, some not so willingly, but there are many, many young women in the world today, in countries where prostitution has been liberalised, who are in the industry because they are victims of a crime. That is what we have.

I have heard people say that they will support this bill but do not want their daughters involved. Let me tell the people here that their daughters will not come home and tell mum and dad that they are now prostitutes, and ask them to agree. They will not tell their parents. I have seen them on ships by the hundreds in this country—probably schoolgirls earning money by selling their bodies, because they have been, to some degree, enticed on to ships to sell such wares.

Wherever in the world this industry has been liberalised, the industry has expanded. John Key thinks that there cannot be any more, and he has made some rather frivolous calculations to illustrate his point. I tell Mr Key that wherever prostitution has been liberalised, it has expanded rapidly. We can expect it to be a front for more drug abuse. We had people come across from Australia to face the select committee, and also to tell us privately, although very few MPs turned up to hear them. They gave us details and showed a video showing some of the events in Sydney.

We have a confused support basis over there. Mr Barnett wants this bill based on Sydney, on New South Wales laws. Phil Goff wants to move to Victorian laws.

Hon Phil Goff: That’s nonsense.

PETER BROWN: It is not. Mr Goff’s amendments take us down the Victorian path. He is legalising it and licensing it. That is what Victoria has done, and it is a long way from what they do in Sydney and New South Wales. Dianne Yates wants to move to the Swedish law. She wants an amendment to base this legislation on the Swedish law. New Zealand First would support the Swedish law, and I would certainly support it. But her amendment will not do it. I believe she has serious and willing intent to achieve that, but her amendment will not do it. If it is passed tonight, it will just send a confusing message.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.