Prostitution Reform Bill

First I would like to pay tribute to Katherine O’Regan, who did much work to progress these issues during her terms in Parliament. Had it not been for her common sense and her practical and compassionate approach to this issue, this bill would not have made it as far as this. I also want to recognise the work of Maurice Williamson, Anne Tolley, and Wayne Mapp, who sat on the select committees, who heard so many of the submissions. Finally, I want to thank those whom I usually oppose—Sue Bradford and Tim Barnett—for the huge amount of work they have done in seeing this bill as far as this. I would also like to thank some of the staff of the Prostitutes Collective in Dunedin and some of the women’s and church groups that took the time to debate with me both sides of the argument.

I intend to vote for this bill in the second reading for a number of reasons. For me, it is not about endorsing prostitution. It is not. It is about giving some people the same rights as other New Zealand people. I believe it will reduce exploitation in the industry. It is about correcting an anachronistic anomaly that says it is OK for a man to buy sex, but not for a woman to solicit. The double standard of morality that operates, which allows a sex worker to be arrested for soliciting a man for the purposes of prostitution, but protects him from the law should he be the one to approach her, is totally indefensible, in my view. I cannot accept that this sort of double standard exists in this century.

I support the bill because it makes it illegal to coerce anyone into providing sexual services. This bill makes it illegal to provide or assist child prostitutes. This bill allows educational and health resources to be made available. It is unacceptable that the current laws inhibit the dissemination of safer-sex information and related products. I do not condone prostitution. I think people are entitled to a better life than one that can be provided by selling sex. I would be heartbroken if one of my children decided to enter the sex industry—prostitution plays no part in my dreams for them—but if they did, I would want to know that they had the same rights as any other New Zealander.

I would want to know that my daughter had the same rights as my son. I believe in one standard of citizenship and, for me, that extends to all aspects of New Zealand life. I would want to know that, as far as possible, the industry was as safe as it could be, and above board. I would counsel sex workers to get other sorts of work, as I have counselled other people who have come into my electorate office. But I would not dismiss them or pretend that they did not exist.

To the Catholic action group who sent me a note today saying that I would burn in hell if I voted for this bill, I say: “Do some self-evaluation. Whatever happened to the Christian principles of love, tolerance, compassion, forgiveness, equality, and charity?”. At my old Sunday school in Mosgiel we were taught that those were important Christian principles. From memory I do not recall there being a book of bigotry and hatred, but perhaps I skipped that chapter.

The bill in its present form is a practical solution to the realities that exist outside these doors. It is not about endorsing prostitution; it is not about condoning prostitution. I hope members will look to their consciences and vote for a positive change.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next member—and it will be someone from the United Future party—I announce to members that if two members from a party want to halve their calls they will be entitled to do so. I presume there is no objection to that course. There is not.

I say at the beginning that the aims of this bill are commendable, and I do not oppose it because of any lack of concern towards prostitutes, or on any moral basis—though my conscience does guide me in this issue, as it is supposed to—but I oppose this bill primarily as a legislator, because I believe that it is bad law and it will not deliver the results that the supporters of this bill promise. In fact, I do not believe it is possible to achieve the worthy aims of this bill by decriminalising or legalising prostitution in any form at all. I believe, initially, that it may be possible to convince one’s conscience that this bill should be supported because of a genuine desire to help those trapped in an awful lifestyle, but I believe that many are beginning to have second thoughts as they realise the implications of this so-called reform bill.

This is not a “Prostitution Reform Bill”; it is a “Society Reform Bill”. It is designed to reform society’s attitude to prostitution, not prostitutes’ attitude to society. The sponsor of the bill has said himself that decriminalisation simply changes the status of prostitution. It would remove the criminal-related stigma of prostitution, and I do not believe that it is healthy for us to change the status of something that every one of us in this Chamber believes is unhealthy and would not want our children to be involved in.

Members of such groups as the Catholic Women’s League, which the sponsor claimed in his booklet was supporting the bill, have changed their minds also. In their letter of 13 February they make it clear that they are opposed and deeply concerned about it, as associated Catholic women also are. Those of us who are Christians deeply regret the bigoted remarks that were sent in an email today. We disassociate ourselves from them because they are not worthy of the Catholic or Christian name, and we do apologise for them. Cardinal Williams would be in opposition to it also, as he has expressed his opposition to this bill.

My first point in opposing this bill is one I believe really emphasises the difficulty that supporters of this bill face. I agree with Tim Barnett—and he will be happy to know that—when he says that this bill is built on a decriminalisation model. That model implicitly rejects the position that prostitution per se needs to be, or indeed can be, controlled, and instead focuses on controlling the genuine harm that can arise in association with prostitution. That is a true statement, but let us be clear about it. The supporters of this bill do not argue for control in any way, shape, or form. In fact, they categorically state that prostitution cannot be controlled. Their idea, therefore, is to give up trying to mitigate its bad effects by law, and instead, decriminalise and hope that everything will work out OK. I cannot submit to that philosophy.

Again, and I quote the sponsor’s own words of explanation in his briefing paper Delivering Decriminalisation, when he says: “Legalisation involves a licensing regime, which would need to be developed, administered, and resourced. Experience worldwide”—and these are Tim Barnett’s own words—“is such that a regime inevitably generates an unlicensed sector.” Those are not my words, though I do agree with them because that is the evidence we find all around the world. We try to decriminalise and legalise in order to get rid of the criminal element, only to find that it springs up again in parallel and does more damage than we had in the very beginning.

I hope the members of this House will remember these words when they are thinking about supporting the second reading of this bill, and then moving amendments to introduce licensing and zoning, because they will be changing this bill from a decriminalised model to a legalised model, which the supporters of the bill themselves have said is a disaster. If members visit Victoria in Australia they will discover that its legislation of this type has not worked, and I have not heard one prostitute or member of the Prostitutes Collective suggest that we should follow that example.

Why does the law need to be reformed? Tim Barnett says that the present laws, and the environment they create, act as significant barriers for workers to exit the industry. I cannot accept that; it is an incredibly twisted argument to make. The sponsor is suggesting that the law is an impediment to anyone exiting the industry. First, let us make it clear that the stated intention of this bill is supposed to be to discourage anyone from entering prostitution, and to make it easier for workers to leave. If prostitution is so bad—I do not hear people saying that it is a worthy occupation—and I am in full agreement with the sponsor on this matter, it would be normal in a democratic, lawful society to express that by making the activity illegal, and to send a message to anyone in our society that this is not the kind of employment we want to see encouraged.

But, no, the supporters of this bill want us to believe that by decriminalising prostitution fewer people will be tempted to join the activity, and more will leave. I think that that is absolute rubbish, and that is why I shall oppose this bill. There is no doubt in my mind that decriminalisation will be seen by the vast majority of New Zealanders—especially the young people—as a legitimising of it. It will become easier to enter what supporters call “the industry”, and it will be harder to leave. A young university student struggling with finances will become more vulnerable. After all, we are talking in this bill of not just decriminalising individual prostitutes and their activities, but of allowing pimping. So a man or woman can seek out a young, attractive woman, and encourage, persuade, and lure her to allow that man or woman to pimp on her life and have the opportunity to make money out of selling her body. It is a matter of the innocence, purity, health, and future of such young people. I mean young people, because if this law manages to keep the age limit at 18 years, that age is still so young to be enduring the horrors of prostitution as a lifestyle.

One of the scariest things I read in the sponsor’s booklet was his answer to the question of how the bill helps street workers. I quote: “Some sex workers are working to support a drug habit. These workers are often younger, disadvantaged, and work on the street rather than in brothels. Under the current system these, out of all sex workers, are the most dependent upon the goodwill of individual police officers.” So we are going to help them by making it OK for them to sell themselves on the street. Is that the kind of New Zealand we want for those poor young people who are disadvantaged? I do not think for a minute that that is what the sponsor of this bill wants, but it is the logical conclusion. We are now trying to pass a law so that young drug addicts selling themselves for sex on the streets can have a good relationship with the police. Do we want these young people on the streets, or do we want to help them to get a better life?

The bill claims that it will protect young people—those under 18—from prostitution, but the fact is that it is already illegal for someone under 18 to be involved in prostitution. It is illegal now. If we are concerned about under-age prostitution, then let us strengthen the Crimes Act, but this bill will not give greater protection for those under 18.

I can explain it no better than by a letter that was sent to me by ECPAT New Zealand Inc., who have said: “One view being touted is that the proposed bill will better protect children. However, section 149A of the Crimes Act 1961 already criminalises under-18-year-olds for prostitution. Despite almost weekly exposure in Truth magazine of children believed to be in the 12 to 14-year age bracket on various New Zealand streets being picked up by so-called punters, almost no action is taken by police to prosecute these abusers. If the police have so few resources to currently prosecute the exploiters of 12 to 14-year-old children, it is naive to believe that the police will offer children greater protection in a deregulated and decriminalised environment.”

There is simply no evidence anywhere in the world that decriminalising has led to a reduction in prostitution or has reduced child prostitution. The aims of the bill may be admirable, but we must ask ourselves whether this legislation can achieve those aims. No fuzzy feelings, no do-gooder motivation, and no liberal wishful thinking: this is a conscience vote, and I appeal to the members of this House to listen to their consciences. The society of New Zealand has a right to expect that this law will result in a healthier and better society, not just for the 8,000 prostitutes who are estimated to be trapped in that kind of work but also for the families across this nation, who must raise their children in the environment that we create and legitimise by the laws we pass in this House. Again, I say that this is not a “Prostitution Reform Bill”; it is a “Society Reform Bill”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a proxy vote to exercise for another member, who rang me after realising that the vote might be a personal vote. I said I believed that I could exercise the proxy vote in the normal way, but the member suggested that I find out whether he has to be here for a personal vote.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Clerk will give the member that information. I am happy to support the decision made by the Clerk.

I do not know whether this is a good or a bad claim to be able to make, but I would suggest that nobody in this House, with, perhaps, the exception of Georgina Beyer, has had a closer association with prostitutes and prostitution than my good self. Everywhere that I have seen that activity, it was a dreadful activity. That is the only conclusion I can reach. I have seen the sex industry across the world in my role as a ship’s officer. I should perhaps clarify, in case my good lady is listening at home, that I have never availed myself of the services of prostitutes. However, I say to this House that I did not always look like I do now; at one time I had some appeal to the opposite sex!

I agree in large measure with what the honourable Larry Baldock has just outlined. He has outlined what the proposer of this bill thinks the bill will and will not do. But let me tell the House what the bill will do if it becomes law. First of all, it provides for the setting up and operation of brothels. OK—maybe some members say that that is no big deal. The bill allows for the procuring for financial gain of a woman or a young man for the selling of sex—for that person to have sexual intercourse with a third party. That, in itself, will give some incentive to the ratbags in this country to procure young women, or to entice them, for the purpose of selling sex. That is happening already, but this legislation will give an incentive to encourage that.

As a result of bringing in this legislation, the activity and the problems associated with the activity of prostitution will become worse and far more serious. If this bill becomes law, we can expect the sex industry to expand. I do not think that anybody would argue with that. Tim Barnett might say that it will increase the number of brothels but will not necessarily increase the number of sex workers. Who does he think he is kidding?

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Where is your evidence?

I will give the member my evidence. I tell the member that wherever prostitution has been liberalised, anywhere in the world, it has expanded. I ask the member to prove me wrong.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: You prove yourself right.

Prove myself right? Mr Goff has travelled the world. He should go and look for himself. He should put on his dark glasses and his hat, and walk around the areas. When we liberalised the security regimes in the ports, that opened the door for prostitution and the situation became worse.

There will be more drug abuse. That occurs worldwide. There will be more child prostitution. There were people from Australia at the Justice and Electoral Committee, and they told us that. Mr Barnett says they told us lies. I do not believe that; my research tells me that they told the truth. There will be more sexual activity, which will lead to more sexually transmitted diseases, and there will be more trafficking in women. I would suggest that in this country trafficking in women is fairly low-key. But in Europe, where prostitution has been liberalised, it is a big industry in itself. If members think it cannot happen here, they should go and look at what has happened in Australia. By opening the industry up, there will be more violence against prostitutes. There will also be more blatant advertising, both of the services provided—and Mr Barnett knows this—and for the recruitment of prostitutes. A disproportionate number of young Māori women, in particular, will become involved in prostitution.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, God!

Yes, they will. The member should go down to the wharves, where they sell their sexual services on ships. She will see that already a disproportionate number of young Māori women are involved now. As a result of this bill, there will be more criminal activity. To say that we will legalise prostitution is like saying that although robbery is against the law now, we should legalise robbery so that it is no longer a criminal activity. Everywhere in the world where prostitution has been liberalised, criminals have become involved and the industry has expanded.

It is generally accepted that prostitution cannot be abolished, and I am not standing here tonight and saying that I want to bring in laws to abolish prostitution. I know that that will not occur; it is beyond the realms of possibility. But if we are to change the law, we can change it in a positive way. We should look at what Sweden is doing, with a considerable degree of success. New Zealand First has worked hard behind the scenes on the Swedish law, and we have produced a bill. To this day, a bill entitled the Prostitution (Client Liability and Prostitutes Care) Bill sits in the name of my colleague Brent Catchpole. That bill is in the ballot right now, and it would improve things no end. It has three principle aims. First, that bill would make the client responsible, so that he or she could be fined and treated in the same way that we currently treat prostitutes. Second, it aims to encourage young prostitutes, in particular, to leave the industry, and to fund a system so that they can leave the industry. The third aim is to restrict and control the advertising of sexual services. If members really want to do something for the people in the industry—and with those little noises they are saying they do—they should look seriously at supporting that bill.

This bill refers to the age of 18, but we know that is a front. Tim Barnett wants the legislation to come in, and to reduce the age to 16. I have here in the House a press release headed “Call for change to sex trade bill” about Tim Barnett, and I have not heard him challenge it.

I quote from that press release: “Labour MP Tim Barnett wants MPs to consider lowering the legal age for the sex trade proposed in his Prostitution Reform Bill. The bill, which aims to protect sex workers from exploitation by decriminalising prostitutes, applies only to workers over 18. Yesterday”—whatever day that was, in September 2001—“Mr Barnett told a cross-party committee hearing submissions on the bill that it needed to reconsider the proposed age.” There is no doubt in my mind that that is his plan two. Mr Barnett wants to move to plan two.

If we look at countries in the western world where prostitution has been liberalised, we see that Sweden has tightened up its laws, and that France is now looking at tightening up its laws. If that was not a liberal regime, I do not know what was, but France is looking at tightening up the laws on prostitution. Finland is also looking to tighten up its laws. [Interruption] I missed that remark from Mr Carter, but I do not think it was worth consideration. Both Norway and Denmark are looking at tightening up their laws.

💬 Government Member: What about Australia?

The member asks me about Australia. Let me talk about Australia.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member should cease his interjections, or else he will be leaving the Chamber. This is a serious debate.

A senator in South Australia who supported this sort of regime went and looked at what had happened in Sydney. After having a first-hand look at the situation there, he went back to South Australia and changed his mind. He said that that was not for him, and he opposed the liberalisation of prostitution reform in South Australia. So members should not tell me that everybody buys into this measure for the good of the community.

This bill is about promoting the prostitution industry. That is what it is totally about. Young women will be attracted into the profession—that is “profession” in inverted commas—and it will be to their detriment. If we pass this bill tonight we are doing a total disservice to young people in this country. We will open up the area of comfort hostessing for people from various parts of the world. Business people who come here to New Zealand will ask for comfort hostesses. We will open the doors for people to entice and encourage young people, in particular, into this industry. Katherine Rich is worried about her two daughters. I can tell her that if we pass this bill, there is a greater risk that they will be involved in this industry.

I find myself in a strange position. As a radical feminist I am in the same camp as Sandra Coney in being opposed to this bill in its present form, yet I am also in the same camp on this bill as many conservative people in this House. I do not believe that prostitution should be a legitimate occupation in this country, and I say it does not need to be. This is a conscience vote, and I very much value women and people generally. I believe that prostitution degrades women, who are the majority of prostitutes.

I believe we have come a long way since Jane Austen wrote her novels, when marriage was basically legitimised prostitution and a way to earn a meal ticket. A high school teacher in Hamilton recently said to me that she had convinced her female students that they could be economically independent, and this bill will put us back by decriminalising prostitution or, strictly speaking, soliciting. People say that prostitution is the oldest profession and that I am not facing reality. But stealing is an old profession, and we are not looking at ways of decriminalising stealing, murder, or other crimes. It seems to me that when it is women’s bodies that are for sale, that is OK. I have talked to many men and asked them about decriminalisation. When I asked whether they thought it is a good idea, they said yes. Then, when I asked whether it would be a good idea for their wife, daughter, sister, or son to become a prostitute, they said oh no. If it is not good enough for one’s wife, daughter, or son to be a prostitute, then as a lawmaker and an MP I say that is not good enough for anybody else’s wife, daughter, son, sister, or brother.

I have not had one letter, phone call, or email to me in my electorate office, or here in Wellington, from a Hamilton person asking me to vote for this bill, and I have had very many communications from people against the bill. The local branches of the National Council of Women, Business and Professional Women, Zonta International, Altrusa International, and of other women’s groups in Hamilton have not petitioned me to vote for this bill, but I have had very strong letters from researchers of the industry and from people such as ECPAT New Zealand urging me to vote against it. The people from the Prostitutes Collective who lobbied me came from Tauranga, not from my electorate in Hamilton East.

This legislation is supposed to protect prostitutes, but I believe it will, rather, protect brothels, brothel-keepers, and their clients. It will mostly protect the clients, by providing nice, clean brothels so that clients can go home to their wives undetected as to where they have spent the night. The legislation is supposed to protect prostitutes’ health, but I believe it is more likely the legislation will protect prostitutes’ clients. If a prostitute has HIV we can bet she is put out of the business, and will probably be prosecuted if she knowingly continues to work. What job protection will she have? Will she receive accident compensation for work-related injuries if she contracts that disease?

I wish to give notice that I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that I wish to bring forward as an amendment if we get to the Committee stage. It will get rid of the anomalies and double standards in prostitution law. This Supplementary Order Paper is based on Swedish law, and it will prosecute the client for soliciting. The present law prosecutes the prostitute. My Supplementary Order Paper, based on the principle of caveat emptor—let the buyer beware, which works in most other contracts—is the one that I believe should prevail. It will get rid of the anomalies and prosecute the clients. It will get rid of the double standards that exist. I have been told by the Swedish members of Parliament with whom I have been in contact that such a system works in Sweden. Critics say it works because prostitutes leave Sweden. I do not really mind if some people do want to leave New Zealand, but I believe we should protect, as has been said, women, young people, and those who may be involved in the industry in this country. I do not wish New Zealand to become the Bangkok of the South Pacific. I believe that my amendment will do away with demand, and, in doing away with demand, we do away with supply.

There will be some other amendments that I would call Nimby amendments, where people will be saying that as long as we have a law that means there is no soliciting in their backyard—in their neighbourhood, near their local school, or near their house—it will be OK. Those sorts of amendments come from people who are happy for something to go on if they can turn their back on it. As I said before, I find myself really believing—this is a conscience vote and one has to lie straight in one’s bed at night—that I will vote against this bill.

It is obvious to members of the House that I support the bill in its present form. That is no secret. I say to Mr Brown that it is true that I have been a prostitute. I became a prostitute before reaching the age of 18. I was about 16, going on 17, when I got involved in the industry, somewhat against my will. I certainly support the 18-year-old age limit, because I have a deep belief that any age that is lower than that—I notice there are people of a contrary view, who want the age to be 16—is not good enough for me, in trying to put protections in place.

Prostitution is a reality of life; everybody in the House accepts that. It would be irresponsible of this Parliament if this bill did not proceed beyond the second reading, because the status quo would remain. Albeit that we hear there is something in the ballot that may come up, it would be years before we would see the like of this sort of legislation proposed in the House again, and that would simply not be the correct thing to do. I believe the Justice and Electoral Committee and the sponsor of the bill, Tim Barnett, have endeavoured to advocate change on behalf of those members of the public who have wanted to see some sensible human rights regarding prostitution afforded to prostitutes and their clients. I do not believe the bill is just for prostitutes and their clients. There is a much wider community that can benefit from the good that this bill proposes.

I respect the contrary views that people hold. Matters of this nature must be debated broadly and robustly, and I am very pleased to say that the debate tonight has been considered and not unreasonable. We have respected each other’s point of view. I say that because even the mind of someone like me, who would probably not be swayed to vote against this bill, is open to what other people may propose as possible amendments. Although I will probably disagree with Dianne Yates’ amendment, given her explanation of what she intends to do should the bill proceed beyond the second reading, other people may have different amendments. Perhaps I will put up an amendment or two myself—who knows? The point is, though, that we must see this through—at least to the Committee stage, I believe. So we should vote this bill through the second reading. Let us hear it all and make good, positive judgments, I hope, either one way or the other.

Prostitution is not a career choice that, I believe, people necessarily want to make, but there are people out there in society who would want to exploit those who are vulnerable enough to be coerced into the industry. Those people must be regulated and controlled in some way, and I believe that this legislation helps to some degree in addressing that issue. When it comes to young people under the age of 18 who may be coerced into the industry, there should be the toughest of penalties for those who do that. Prostitution is easy to get into. It is easy to enter the industry, but getting out—well, one might never get out. One might get out of the industry, but does it ever get out of one’s head? No, it does not—certainly not in my experience. It is there. I have now taken my experiences to be valuable life experiences, enabling me to know what I am for and against about the industry.

I congratulate the members in this House, all of those who have been involved with promoting this bill, and all of those who have been involved with expressing the contrary view. This has been a very healthy public debate, and I certainly hope it continues beyond this second reading. I support the bill.

I started on this process with something more than an open mind. I started with the presupposition that the law should have no place in the bedrooms of the nation; that it was a matter of private morality, and that by endeavouring to regulate private morality we would be doing more harm than good. I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which heard the evidence, or most of it. I reached the stage where I could not take any more, and, in the end, for my sin—I ceased to come along—I became the chairman of the committee that had to bring it to the conclusion. I was pleased to hear Georgina Beyer’s comments about having an open mind. Unfortunately, I still have an open mind. I propose to vote against the bill, at this stage, out of revulsion, but not out of revulsion for prostitution; I believe that only those without sin should cast the first stone. My revulsion is at what appeared to me, throughout this, to be a kind of insincerity—I am not allowed, in the Chamber, to use the word that would describe it better. I came to feel revulsion for those who wanted to tap into looking fashionable, who wanted to tap into a list of noble objectives, but refused to look at the detail, and refused to look at what we were actually doing and how the law would actually work.

During the select committee’s consideration of the bill, I tried to get someone to tell me which human rights of sex workers were presently not the same for them as for everyone else. I tried to get someone to tell me what in this bill actually safeguards a human right of a sex worker, but I never got an answer. I tried to get someone to tell me what in this bill protects sex workers from exploitation, when in fact we are abolishing the law against pimping, and when, around the world, the activity of the pimps who enslave those who work for them, in a variety of ways, is the most exploitative element of prostitution. I tried to get someone to tell me how this bill promoted the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers when in fact the promoters of the bill actually admit there is a deliberate bias, in what we have really done, against brothels and in favour of what they seem to see as some kind of utopian worker cooperatives—small worker cooperatives, probably not more than four, that would have no boss. So what they have done is put health and safety obligations on brothel owners—the bosses, the operators—then build a law that will encourage street-work and will increase the hurdles, the potential liabilities, for brothel owners.

I considered that, and I said that if these slogans meant something, we would be working through this bill to try to see how it will actually be implemented. For example, we prohibit the use in prostitution of persons under 18 years of age. Let us put aside for the moment the fact that that was already illegal under the Crimes Act. It is claimed as one of the benefits of the bill. When the police told us that to make it work they will need to know how old people are, that they will need to be able to find out how old people are reasonably conveniently, and that one way of doing that would be to require, as at present, brothel-keepers to have evidence of age, the promoters of the bill said no. We have a prohibition on the use in prostitution of persons under 18 years of age, and I suggested that there ought to be at least some responsibility or some culpability on a 17-year-old who deliberately uses false age identification, but there was no prospect of that. So I came to the position where I had to go back to my caucus—and ACT will stand up for unpopular principle, if necessary—and I had to say: “I’m finding it very hard to recommend that you vote for this bill, which should have been a simple decriminalisation.”

I proposed a test: a provision that stated, in detail, that nothing in the bill will prevent someone who believes prostitution is wrong from advocating strongly against it; a provision that would confirm that the legislation is intended to decriminalise but not to normalise. In other words, the normal social pressures that Ms Rich mentioned—the pressures from parents, schools, other agencies against an activity that most will think is damaging—should be given free rein, provided that there is no unlawful coercion. That provision was removed. In fact, at one stage in the drafting we had something that was a little bit beefier than the pious reference that we now see in clause 3. So I became convinced that there was an agenda here that was about more than just taking away the impediments to public health.

We had much evidence—none of it very compelling, though, in the sense of showing the link between cause and effect—from people who are active in the industry that the law presently discourages the use of condoms and other preventives, and that there is some present discouragement to using health services. I accept that, but what I do not accept is that the methods that one might use to ensure that those discouragements are removed, without encouraging more stand-over tactics, were not acceptable to the select committee.

I spent a bit of time in Holland in October, while this bill was being considered. I visited the chief of police in charge of the Amsterdam vice squad, as we would call it. We talked for 2 or 3 hours about how they have been dealing with the various issues, and at the end of it he said to me, in very good English: “If I were in your position I would think we have heaven.” The big problem for them is trafficking, drug use, gangs, and the control of this industry by criminals. What does this bill do? It wipes out the only real reason that I can see, from the evidence given to us at the select committee, that there is not significant criminal involvement in prostitution in New Zealand—that is, the Massage Parlours Act.

It was probably never intended as a way of keeping prostitution relatively clean, but that has been the practical effect. Loathe though I am to see a situation where a law is effectively disregarded or un-enforced, change may be worse. I am forced to think that there is some type of legislative Hipprocratic-type rule: “First do no harm.” I cannot be satisfied that here we are doing no harm. It is an on-balance conclusion. I would like to be persuaded, if this bill gets to the Committee stage, by amendments that show more sincerity than there has been to date. The real interest here is in public health and in removing some of the unpleasantness and the risks. Police corruption is just one of the real risks in this industry.

The only positive thing that this bill does at the moment is that it sends the labour inspector into the brothel. It forgets about all those who will then run out the backdoor and will thereafter be working without the benefit of a labour inspector, without the benefit of the current police register, and without the benefit of the fact that the current threat—the threat to the pimps—at the moment does not affect the prostitute. Prostitution has not been illegal in New Zealand for 100 years. The current threats are all on the brothel keepers and the pimps. Yet somehow I am supposed to believe that removing the only sanctions or threats to the brothel keepers and the pimps will bring nirvana and a world of women and young men free of coercion.

LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere): I stand in this House to support this bill as a woman, as a former unionist representing workers, and as a mother. I sat on the select committee, the Justice and Electoral Committee, with an open mind. I had the privilege of meeting and hearing from many who work in the profession. These people work in a profession that is not highly regarded, but as people I have tremendous respect for them. They cared about the people they worked with in the industry, both now and for many generations before, and they want to ensure that these people are safe and fairly treated. I also want to pay my respects to the many organisations that have written to me and spoken to me in support of this bill I refer to the National Council of Women of New Zealand, the YMCA, business women of New Zealand, health organisations, the Human Rights Commission, and so many more. I do not mean to be unkind but I think that members who oppose this view are not speaking from a position of knowledge, are not speaking from a position of understanding, and are not speaking from a position of wisdom. They are influenced by their prejudice.

I stand and support this bill, and I refer back to what I said at the beginning. I support this bill as a woman, because it is about the right to choose and to be safe and secure in that choice. I support the bill as a unionist representing workers, because it is the right of every New Zealand worker to be covered by health and safety legislation that does the best to ensure they are safe at work. Most important to me, I support the bill as a mother. Prostitution would not be the occupation of choice for my children, but neither would selling tobacco, and neither, quite frankly, would be sitting in the Opposition benches. However, given that my children have that choice, I would want them to be safe and secure and to have the best life possible in that choice. That is why I support this bill.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I support the intent of this bill to decriminalise prostitution. Prostitution is a reality in our society. It always has been. Efforts to eliminate it and make it illegal have served only to force it underground, not remove it as a practice. Many people work in that industry out of choice. It is a choice I do not understand, but I do not believe it is a choice that makes people into criminals. Indeed, the people who are their clients have never been made criminals under our law, which is a clear example of double standards. Some people are in the industry out of economic necessity, often because they are drug addicts. We as a Parliament should probably look at doing more to help the people who come under that category to extract themselves from the industry. But, again, making them criminals does nothing to help their position.

It is a fact that, in practice, we regard prostitution as a victimless offence. The police do not spend much of their valuable time enforcing the laws on prostitution, and nor would anyone in this House say they should do so ahead of their other responsibilities in fighting crime. Neither the public nor anyone in this House demands that the police should be enforcing that law. Maintaining a law that we do not intend to enforce brings the law into contempt and, frankly, is an exercise in hypocrisy. Worse than that, making soliciting a crime actually serves as an obstacle to ensuring that people are not subject to exploitation or coercion, to eliminating unsafe sexual behaviour, and to excluding the criminal organisations that are currently heavily involved in this area.

In supporting this bill to enable society more effectively to rid itself of those evils, I also believe that it is necessary to give greater protection to the community against problems that may continue, or problems that may arise under decriminalisation. Tonight I want to foreshadow my intention in the Committee stage to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to deal with what I see as the shortcomings in the bill as it currently stands.

The first is the need for some form of licensing, albeit light-handed, that would give police the authority to act against criminals operating, or seeking to operate, businesses of prostitution. This is an industry that currently attracts such persons, with gangs known to have prostitution, alongside drug trafficking and general crime, as a significant source of income. My Supplementary Order Paper would require every operator of a business of prostitution to hold a licence—not the sex workers themselves but those who manage and operate the businesses. Those with criminal records involving serious sexual, violent, drugs or arms offences would be prohibited from holding a licence, as would those people who have committed gang-related offences. The goal of that provision clearly is to empower the police to exclude such persons. I doubt that anyone in this House believes that someone with a conviction for rape, violence, or drug trafficking should lawfully be able to manage and control a brothel. Yet, as this bill currently stands, that would be the case.

The second major provision on my Supplementary Order Paper is to allow territorial authorities to make bylaws prohibiting brothels in certain areas. I believe that although most New Zealanders would agree that criminalisation of prostitution is futile and probably counter-productive, most would also clearly desire, in the event of decriminalisation, some controls to prevent the establishment of places of prostitution where they are offensive or inappropriate. Most of us would not want to see brothels established in residential areas or adjacent to preschools or schools. My amendment would allow the local territorial authorities, the councils, to prohibit the establishment of, or to order the removal of, a brothel in an area where it would cause a nuisance or serious offence to ordinary members of the public. That would not enable territorial authorities to place a general ban on brothels. There are clearly commercial areas where the establishment of such a place of prostitution would not cause local offence.

Finally, I urge members in this House, including members who have some doubts about the bill as it currently stands, to vote for the second reading of this bill so that the House can examine ways in which necessary safeguards can be introduced into the legislation during the Committee stage.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The debate we are having tonight about whether we take the next stage in voting to decriminalise prostitution in Aotearoa, New Zealand is one of the most significant I have participated in since coming to Parliament 3 years ago. This is an issue that arouses huge emotions in many of us. Before going any further, I would like to say, as others here have, that I respect the right of every other MP and every member of the public to hold their own particular beliefs and personal feelings on this very difficult and sensitive issue. At the same time, however, I would like to make a plea to all MPs who have not yet made up their minds either way to consider casting a vote in favour of decriminalisation at the end of the debate tonight.

I am one of a fairly small number of MPs still in Parliament who have sat through the entire select committee process on this bill, from beginning to end. We heard submissions from a huge variety of perspectives, from sex workers, nuns, and feminists to brothel owners, church leaders, women’s groups, local government representatives, and a myriad of other people.

We spent months and months discussing and researching, with the help of officials, the myriad of tricky issues that this bill raises. I have to say that I do not think we left any stone, no matter how murky, unturned. In the end, the Justice and Electoral Committee did not make major changes to Tim Barnett’s original Prostitution Reform Bill, as some would have the House believe. We did pass some clarifying amendments, and did things like widening the responsibility for the provision of safe sex materials and setting up a review committee to monitor how the bill works out in practice, but none of this in any way significantly changed its original concept, intent, or scope.

To those MPs who supported this bill at the end of the first reading, I would like to say that there is no reason to change their vote now. There has been intense lobbying of all of us over the last few weeks and months. Many, many issues have been raised, and, while I would love to talk about all of them, time constraints will obviously not allow that, and I will stick to a few key points.

First, I believe that this issue is, at heart, a moral one. All sorts of other arguments are used to cloak that reality, but I think that underneath all the words we are using here tonight, and all the emotions, what we are doing when we vote today is making a moral judgment. New Zealand laws around prostitution find their ancestry in Victorian England, and further back than that in the Christian Bible. While I accept totally people’s right to their belief that, for example, prostitution is a sin, I cannot accept their right to maintain that Christian sin should be a law in 2003 in a country that is not a theocracy and has no State religion. I do not think that people of one faith, or a stream within one faith, have the right to impose their moral precepts through law, unless there is acceptance by wider society that a crime is actually being committed. For example, our society does accept the biblical sin of murder as a crime, but we do not accept that people who commit the biblical sin of adultery should likewise be sent to jail.

I fundamentally question the right of the State in this day and age to interfere with the rights of people 18 years and over to have consensual sex with each other. There is no way that sex workers—mainly women—should continue to be open to harassment and prosecution for a victimless crime. Nor should we turn to the Swedish model, which prosecutes the men who pay for sex. The Swedish experience shows that all that does is drive prostitution underground. In the UK, laws criminalising the client have been tried for 17 years and there is no sign whatsoever that prostitution is dying out, even though that is the main rationale for that type of law. While on the select committee, we heard evidence from a sex worker in Sweden who talked about the much greater physical dangers she and others now face as a result of the law change there. She reported that some of the worst consequences of the Swedish law have been that there is a lot more underage teenage prostitution, that the mafia bosses have more control, and that workers are too scared to get police help, even when friends are murdered, because if it gets out that they have called the cops, they lose all their customers. I would like to ask those feminists and Christians in the House who are so fond of the Swedish model whether they really think it preferable that we should impose greater criminalisation on the industry, with all that that entails, rather than remove sanctions and create the protections that come when prostitutes feel able to call police and other services for help when they need it, without fear of persecution or of loss of trade.

There is a feminist strand of thought that opposes this bill. This seems to come from a perspective that says that because prostitution is fundamentally an unpleasant, yucky kind of thing for most people even to think about, and because some sex workers have had abuse in their earlier lives, somehow that means that all prostitutes should continue to be criminalised for their profession. As a lifelong feminist myself, I acknowledge the desire behind that line of thought to bring an end to something that its proponents see as degrading and exploitative, but I come from another strand of feminist thinking that believes that it is our job to do everything we can to make life better for all women, even those who are in this most vulnerable of occupations. Unless we truly believe that prostitution is going to disappear altogether and soon, I believe that the best we can do as feminists is to maximise the conditions that will help to end the worst excesses of violence, coercion and exploitation, rather than allow prostitution to continue as a subset of the criminal world.

Rape, physical assault, theft of wages, the threat of murder, and other extreme forms of violence and exploitation are what many New Zealand prostitutes live with right now. In dealing with this bill we are not talking about some kind of abstract theory, but about the reality of people’s lives. It is no use waiting for some utopian future to come true. I would much rather do everything I can, right now, to help protect and empower those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to make prostitution their occupation. This bill is a worker’s issue too, as my colleague Lynne Pillay has so eloquently pointed out. I hope that people with union consciousness will see the sense in making that particular work environment one in which employees will have much more power to organise, if this bill goes through.

I think it is instructive to consider for a moment some of the groups that have come out strongly in support of the bill. Those include organisations like the Prostitutes Collective, the AIDS Foundation, the Salvation Army, a number of sexual health services, several community law centres, the Family Planning Association, the Citizens Advice Bureaux, Women’s Refuge, and Wellington Independent Rape Crisis. The people from those groups are those who work with and for prostitutes at grass-roots level. They know what is going on. As lawmakers we often justifiably try to give precedence to the views of those groups that are most intimately connected with any particular piece of legislation, whatever the topic. I think that we should apply that principle here too and give priority to the voices of sex workers themselves, and of those who work most closely with them. They want us to decriminalise prostitution now.

Finally, I am pleased to advise the House that in line with our Green Party women’s policy, all nine of our MPs will be voting in support of decriminalisation. I hope that others here tonight will have the moral courage to face down the outrageous and totally unnecessary moral panic that has been created around this bill and join us in making that vote, too.

This is not a bill that protects prostitutes. It is not a bill designed to encourage prostitution. It is not a bill setting a new moral climate. This is a bill that simply decriminalises prostitution, and for that reason I support the bill. In doing so, it is interesting to note that the person I contested the last general election with—a former Deputy Mayor of Napier and a former member of Parliament who described herself as representing Napier—also endorsed the bill. When I speak to my electorate, I remind them of the fact that it is not emotion that should decide the outcome of this bill, it is not anecdote, personal experience, or fear—it is cold, analytical common sense.

I want to start by reminding the House of clause 3, which is the purpose section. Those who are propagating arguments against the bill deliberately overlook clause 3. It reads: “The purpose of this Act is to decriminalise prostitution (while not endorsing or morally sanctioning prostitution or its use) and to create a framework that—(a) safeguards the human rights of sex workers and protects them from exploitation: (b) promotes the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers: (c) is conducive to public health: (d) prohibits the use in prostitution of persons under 18 years of age: (e) implements certain other related reforms.”

Those reforms are not reforms legalising prostitution, and they are not reforms setting up a regime of approval of the activity, but are merely fundamental, common-sense, health and safety and non-exploitive reforms. But those who are fearful of the outcome of this bill, or those who believe for some reason that prostitution is contagious and society will be hit with a wave of prostitutes and their clients, can take refuge in clause 9N. This bill provides the first common-sense approach to the question of prostitution in this country.

Clause 9N states that a prostitution law reform committee will be formed. As soon as practicable after the commencement of this legislation, it will assess the number of persons working as sex workers in New Zealand, and any prescribed matters that relate to sex workers or prostitution, and report on its findings to the Minister of Justice. Clause 9N also states that no sooner than the expiry of 3 years, but before the expiry of 5 years after the commencement, there will be a thorough review of the operation of the Act. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, those people bandying about figures of increases in the number of prostitutes, child prostitution, and the other fear-based scaremongering tactics taken by those who want to protect the present hypocritical, ineffective law, will be able to have figures on which to base their assessments.

No countries had assessed the number of prostitutes before they made a change to their laws. So we cannot say there has been a multiplication by so many percentage, because we do not have a starting point. With this bill we will have a starting point to assess the degree of problem, if any, in this country. By decriminalising prostitution we can get an even playing field, but people should not forget that there are still protections for us and members of the public. There is the Crimes Act, the Summary Offences Act, which controls order and disorder on the streets, the Resource Management Act, the Employment Relations Act, taxation legislation, and GST laws. There are laws in this country that can answer all the concerns of those who want to build a framework of oppression already. All we are simply doing is taking away the ground of hypocrisy of ineffective laws, dubious health standards, and the influx of criminal gangs into an existing industry that is growing already before our very eyes.

I endorse this bill totally because it decriminalises acts of prostitution. It goes one step further and lays a basis for us to assess how this country is placed in the moral climate, and it gives us a chance to work rationally to decide whether any steps should be taken to attack some imagined evil. I say to those who are concerned that the country will become a barren climate of moral ne’er-do-wells that they should go to their faith, and have faith in their fellow men. This is a good country, and this is good bill.

I rise to join in this debate tonight. For the 6 years or so that I have been here, this is one of the most important debates we could participate in as members of Parliament. I congratulate Tim Barnett, and also Katherine O’Regan, a former member of this Parliament, who did a lot of the background work towards the introduction of this bill. When the bill was introduced I was one of those members who voted for it to be sent to select committee. I had an open mind about all the issues that this bill addresses. Again, I congratulate Tim Barnett on bringing one of the hardest issues to this Parliament so that we can discuss openly the impact of the sex-trade industry and how we will address these issues in the future.

Is this a bill that deals with the rights of prostitutes? Is this a bill that provides the greatest protection for those who are most vulnerable in this industry? I thought about that when I started listening to the submissions. It became something that shaped my opinion on the decriminalisation issue.

I will not vote for this bill, for a number of reasons. I do not think it will protect those who are most vulnerable in the industry. I say that from the base of knowledge of having listened to submissions, having gone to Australia, having listened to a lot of experiences of people in the industry, and also having listened to a lot of contrary views and moral views from other groups. I believe that I have tried to cast the widest net possible to make my determinations and stand on my conscience today.

This bill presents a number of anomalies that this House needs to consider. It is the impact of this legislation, which forms what will happen in our communities, that we need to be really mindful of. The issue of 18 as the age for sex workers is in the bill. I commend members for setting the age at 18, but when the legal consenting age is 16 it presents an anomaly that is unworkable. We should not bring bad law into this House. But, more so, what are the types of messages that we as members of Parliament are sending out into our communities? Do we accept that this is a profession that we want to encourage people to go into? I do not want to stand here as a member of Parliament in judgment—far from it. However, I want to be part of a Parliament that says there are values in our society that all cultures and all nationalities will uphold, to ensure the rights of women will be protected every step of the way. I cannot support this bill.

It gives me great concern that members tonight have said that those who are opposed to the bill are taking some moral high ground. I do not believe that is it, at all. When I look at the communities that I represent and when I talk to Māori women who are in the industry, they bring up the issue of harassment when they engage in this type of activity. There is no protection, and this bill will not provide it, either. When they ask for payment first when they are out in a car somewhere or when they are down an alley, the simple fact of the matter is that nothing in this bill will help them.

How can I say that this is an opportunity to provide protection for those who are most vulnerable in the sex industry? Even if we were to move towards a licensing regime, which is a step towards legalisation, will that help those who are the most vulnerable? No, it will not, because the problems that are associated with sectors of people who participate in the unregulated part of the industry are most at risk.

When we visited Australia we heard that there were a whole lot of other issues associated with activities around prostitution. It was prostitution, and drugs and alcohol. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world because no country anywhere has been able to regulate, protect, or safeguard all the issues that surround prostitution.

I would like to make one final point. Comparative studies on indigenous people and the impact of prostitution on indigenous communities, whether they be male or female, have shown that decriminalisation will not work, and I will not support it.

I rise to say that I will not support the bill, and I will not support it for various reasons. In my opinion, prostitution is rape accompanied by payment—if the prostitute is lucky. That is all it is. I will not vote against this bill just because of moral issues. I will vote against it because I believe that prostitution is a terrible thing for prostitutes. There are already, supposedly, 8,000 prostitutes in this country. Members of the House who are worried about prostitutes being criminalised, should read the first sentence of the introduction in the commentary on the bill: “Prostitution itself is not an illegal activity in New Zealand.” What is illegal is pimping, soliciting on the streets, and that sort of activity. Prostitution itself is not an illegal activity, and it has not been for over 100 years. What makes anyone think that voting in favour of this bill will decriminalise prostitution? It will not, because it cannot. What it does do is decriminalise the activities of people who will abuse people who happen to be prostitutes.

In my years as a lawyer, I dealt with several prostitutes. They were generally really good clients—they always paid in cash, they never expected something for nothing, and they always had a jolly good sense of humour. That is worth a lot in my book. I did take the opportunity to ask those women about their lives as prostitutes and it was not a very pretty tale. One woman showed me her diary, which was basically her tally book of how many men she was servicing within a night. On a really good night—which was the way she described it—there were nine. I asked her what she thought about when that was happening to her, and she said to me: “Judith, what I do is I don’t see anything. I’m not there, and all I can think about is a $100 bill, and it’s flying in the air towards me, and I’m about to catch it.” If anyone in this Parliament has ever dealt with rape victims, as I have, that is a similar tale—the disassociation of the mind from the body and the focusing on not being there because it is all over now. That is what we are talking about.

We have been told that this bill will help the safety of prostitutes, but we have just heard from the previous speaker that it will not help the safety of prostitutes. We have been told that it will be a crime to coerce someone into having commercial sex. Well, gee whiz, it already is a crime. That is what the Crimes Act is for. It is already a crime. For those who say that it will stop under-age prostitution, I think I have just seen a pig fly through the air. That is absolute rubbish. We were told in a previous Parliament that lowering the drinking age to 18 would stop 16-year-olds from drinking, and what has happened? Now 14-year-olds are drinking. That is what happens in this country when those kinds of laws are passed. [Interruption] I remind Lianne Dalziel that this is a conscience vote, and I have given her people some credit tonight. She should remember that.

We have heard tonight from Georgina Beyer, who in my opinion is the most capable member of the Labour caucus, and is not a Minister only because of her transsexual background. That is the only reason, because she is definitely the most capable. She has told us tonight about the psychological damage of being a prostitute. I have spoken with prostitutes myself and asked them what it is that they do, and what the damage is to them. I asked one of them if there was a lot of drug use in massage parlours—which, by the way, I have to tell some members on the other side of the House are actually brothels—and she said to me: “Of course, Judith, there has to be drugs, because how the hell else would you do the job?”. That sounds sensible to me, and I see Georgina Beyer is agreeing. Do not tell me this legislation will help those people. It is already a very, very bad industry. At the moment we have brothels. They are regulated. The police have access to them. There are controls over who can work in them. This bill will not help that situation, at all. It will lead to legitimised pimping and soliciting on the streets. If members think that it will not, they should go down King’s Cross in Sydney sometime and see the 14 year-olds prostituting themselves on the streets. Do not tell me this bill will not do that. Of course it will.

I will not be supporting this bill. We have been told that if the vote on the second reading is lost tonight, it will be another 20 years before this legislation comes back to Parliament. I say “Thank God for that.”

The Progressive members in this Parliament—Jim Anderton and myself—have discussed this bill with our party leadership, and we have decided that this is truly a conscience vote for us, and not a party decision. That is unusual for us because we try, in most cases, to proceed on the basis of the policy that we put before the country. Why is this a conscience vote? It is because although prostitution is an area requiring social reform, there is no simple answer and there are a number of personal decisions that only an individual can take.

Opponents and proponents of the bill, as far as I am aware, all proclaim that they do not want punitive measures to be taken, but to ensure that those in prostitution can move into healthy life choices. Success in the future, whether this bill goes through or not, would be just a first step towards that. Of course, there is a need for Parliament to concentrate on the issues that have been brought up, and a need for the Government to take responsibility for some of the issues that cannot be dealt with by the chance of a member’s bill being enacted. But to have those healthy life choices requires a social and economic programme that will provide alternatives to prostitution. Only the Government parties—Progressive or Labour—provide the alternative policies that lead to full employment, the removal of barriers to education, and social support, allowing those in prostitution, if they wish, to make a fresh and productive life for themselves. Our policies should ensure that those in prostitution have full access to health care without discrimination, to employment, and to educational opportunities. Legislation alone cannot do that; it requires Government action and policy direction.

Many parties rely on empty and vacuous moral phrase-mongery on the issue of prostitution. They preach and prate about their commitment to the family, but do not have policies that allow family members to obtain the means to build a constructive life. When put to the test on, for instance, 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave for the lowest-paid New Zealanders, they vote against that simple contribution to a better family life. They truly preach “pie in the sky when you die”, rather than implementing social reforms for our life on earth. Good reforming legislation cures a mischief. How to cure that mischief has caused furious debate. That is why this has come down to a conscience vote. Conscience presupposes consciousness. If social being determines consciousness, then it is necessary to look at our social structure in order to determine remedies. If parties vote against this bill en bloc, as ACT and New Zealand First have indicated they will, they need to put forward the social, economic, educational, and employment policies that provide an alternative to prostitution.

Tim Barnett has rightly highlighted the health concerns for prostitutes, their exploitation by those who employ them and by the pimps and spivs who hang around, and the related issues of drug addiction, blackmail, and deeply entrenched psychological problems. If members vote against this legislation, they have to provide a better alternative to it. I am voting against it. I do not believe that the bill is totally wrong. I simply believe that it does not get to the core of the issues, adds a nightmare of regulation, elevates sex work to the position of healthy, productive, and fulfilling labour in our society, and sets up a policing regime that, in my view, would drive providers and clients underground. My reference to that is taken from the experience of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands—a left-wing party in the Parliament of the Netherlands and one that is close to my heart—which voted for reform along the lines of Tim Barnett’s bill. In an article that its members sent to me, and in discussions with them on the phone, they told me they believed that they had made a mistake. They said that legalisation had led to a bigger industry, to the driving underground of many people, and to greater misery. I took notice of their experience. It is one view.

I have no truck with the reactionary, semi-religious prattling on the issue of prostitution that glorifies a model of the family that is actually oppressive and, in a condescending way, sees “fallen women” as needing redemption and to be preached at, rather than to be given the tools needed to find employment, proceed with study, and end drug addiction. I say to those who have given me such views ad nauseum that they should read John 8:3-11: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”, or words to that effect.

Jim Anderton and I, while completely respecting the motives of Tim Barnett, do not believe that for those involved in the industry this bill will cure the mischief of exploitation, drug addiction, severe health risks, and child prostitution. We argue that attention must be turned to solving the underlying causes of the issue. The first step is to pay attention to poverty. At the last election the Progressives outlined the extent of poverty in New Zealand. We are advocating, in this Budget round and in our policies, for greater attention and a cohesive approach to be taken to ending poverty in New Zealand. There needs to be consistent and cohesive action to combat drug abuse, particularly amongst the young. The Progressives in Government are part of the process of developing an action plan on alcohol abuse and illicit drugs. We are pushing for early intervention strategies to be better resourced and widened.

I rise to support this bill and to maintain a consistent argument. As a mother, a midwife, and a health worker for many years, I have seen how the law in its current form provides a very poor framework. This bill will help very much to clean up the sex industry. The current law simply inhibits the passing on of information on safe sex, and that is the fundamental problem if we are to clean up the industry from a sexual health perspective. I want to speak from that perspective tonight. We have already had evidence of the police moving to use safe-sex materials as evidence in court of prostitution-related crimes, and that has happened as recently as December of last year.

The incentives in the current bill are really about changing the environment of fear that exists for workers in the sex industry to one of protection. The current law as we see it now is a blokes’ law. It is a condom law that protects the bloke and not the sex worker, in a two-way transaction that is willingly entered into by two people. The law penalises a sex worker if he or she is found soliciting, but lets off the paying customer who seeks that service and happily pays for it. I favour the decriminalisation model, and it is for those reasons that I want the bill to go on to the Committee stage. The bill puts the right incentives in place and stops the nonsense of using evidence of safe-sex practices against the worker.

I also want to mention that the United Nations has undertaken work here on the impact of HIV/AIDS in sex work, and has done a report on the global impact of sex workers on HIV/AIDS. The report states that the legal status of sex work in a given region has a significant bearing on the effectiveness of AIDS programmes that target sex workers. Where sex work is illegal, legislative frameworks are often orientated towards penalising individual sex workers. In such settings, sex workers are less likely to seek health services and are more likely to conduct their services underground.

I spent a night with the Prostitutes Collective in Rotorua, and went to massage parlours and brothels. I did not see any evidence of coercion, fear, or abuse from the sex workers. I talked to the sex workers—this is a very responsible collective. Those workers want this law. They know that this law will give them the protections that will clean up the industry, and will get people who are working on the street back into registered, licensed premises. I think we need to listen to that attitude. I think more of my colleagues in the House need to go out with the Prostitutes Collective in order to see how the law as it currently applies is not working, and how that collective is urging us, with great responsibility as parliamentarians, to support this bill.

I also have the letter that all members have received from the Family Planning Association, the AIDS Foundation, the Public Health Association, the Prostitutes Collective, the National Council of Women, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, and the Young Women’s Christian Association of Aotearoa - New Zealand. Those organisations state that they want this bill because it safeguards the human rights of sex workers, protects workers from exploitation, promotes the welfare and occupational safety and health of sex workers, creates an environment that is conducive to public health, and prohibits the use in prostitution of persons under the age of 18 years. I did not meet one sex worker—one prostitute—who supported the idea that young children should ever enter that profession. They themselves had entered through different means and different approaches, and I as a mother do not want my children to take up that option. But the Prostitutes Collective is responsibly helping sex workers to leave the industry, and that is what it is being set up to assist. It also says that fundamentally the law as it stands is an ass, because it is used against sex workers.

I support this bill going to its next stage.

I might share that member’s view if this bill proposed to make it illegal for the police to use safe-sex things like condoms as evidence in prosecutions. I might support the member if the bill proposed to even up the law and make the client as guilty as the prostitute. But that is not what the bill does. The bill proposes to decriminalise prostitution in this country, and I think that would be a mistake. I want to outline to the House why I hold those views.

Not so long ago we had a very similar conscience vote in this Parliament on the drinking age. At the heart of that debate was the belief that people would be much more responsible under a liberalised law. Well, how many people believe that today? It is my view that that legislation was an error. Parliament, in reducing the drinking age, has only increased the amount of under-age drinking, and society is the poorer for it. I say the same thing will happen with regard to this bill.

I am also interested that members have said that this bill would somehow make working in the sex industry safe. I say that is an oxymoron. I reflect on the wise comments of people like Nanaia Mahuta and Judith Collins, and I say they are right to argue that there is no such thing as a safe sex worker.

I want to go to the core of this debate. This will sound a bit unusual for a person who is proud to stand for a National Party that stands for enterprise and the market. But, equally so, I know the limits of the market. It has seemed quite ironic to me to listen to the left-wing speeches from members of the Greens and the Labour Party who say the Nats fail to understand that not everything is for sale. Well I do stand in this House and say some things are not for sale. I do not think we should have a market for the sale of kids. Adoptions should be outside the market. When it comes to organs for donation and human body parts like blood, I say that there is no place for a market in them. Equally, I say that sex is the same. It is too special just to be part of the market forces, and for such an intimate relationship to be just had for a few bucks. I am happy to stand on those principles, because principles matter.

I would also be interested to know, from those members who say that prostitution should be decriminalised, what the limit of that means. I am not sure of that. If prostitution is to become a legitimate job—and I believe that if a job is on offer, one should take it—does that mean, if we apply that approach, that a person would be declined a benefit if he or she did not take up a job as a prostitute? That would be wrong. Does it mean that we should be able to advertise prostitution freely in our communities, with hoardings and with advertisements in the newspapers? I say no. I think that is wrong.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Hasn’t the member ever read the back page of the paper?

I ask Mr Goff, who is happy to stand in this House and say that rape is a crime—and we had a hot debate about that; we wanted to lock rapists up for longer—just what the difference is between rape and prostitution. How is it that when it comes to rape we want to have penalties that will lock people up for 20 years, but suddenly, if there is an exchange of money, it is all OK and it will become an OK activity?

Then we come to those who say prostitution is the oldest profession, so we should just allow it. I think that is a morally bankrupt guide. This Parliament makes murder illegal, but does anybody in this House believe that that means there will not be a single murder? No, we do not believe that, but we still maintain that standard. We say that assault, dishonesty, and theft are wrong. We all know that humanity is fallible and that in those things men and women are fallible, but we still set that standard. I say the same standard should apply when it comes to prostitution.

I now come to the broader issue, and this is the real key. The real crux is this: what sort of society do we want to have in New Zealand? Even for those who have honestly presented an argument for liberalisation of the law, that is the crux. I respect their point of view that prostitution is not necessarily something they like, but that they think we should be pragmatic.

The question I ask members, as they make their conscience vote, is this: will this bill result in more acts of prostitution in New Zealand? The honest answer has to be yes. If the answer to that is yes, why would this Parliament want there to be more of something that I am convinced is harmful and not a good thing? Even those whose speeches have been in favour of the bill agree on that. As a father, I want my daughter to grow up in a society in which there are clear lines about what it is and is not proper to sell. I want her to grow up in a society where sex is one of those special things that are not up for auction.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I put the question, I emphasise to members that there are two questions to be put. I will go over them before I put them. The first question is that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. Having voted on that issue, the question then is that the bill be now read a second time. I intend to call a personal vote on both questions.