Prostitution Reform Bill

This is a botched-up bill and it should be thrown out. We have amendments by Phil Goff, and now we have just heard that they have been withdrawn and replaced by others. We have an amendment by Lianne Dalziel that bans people on temporary visas from sex work. We have an amendment from Stephen Franks, wanting to discriminate against landlords who want to rent accommodation to sex workers. We have amendments by Dianne Yates, who wants to turn the bill into a Swedish model, and amendments by Gordon Copeland, who wants to have a prohibition on advertising for sex. Sue Bradford wants to drop all that; she wants an inquiry into advertising. Wayne Mapp wants to bring in restrictions to say what the status quo is.

This bill is so mixed up and so full of holes and loopholes that nobody in this Committee really agrees with it as it is. Despite the rumour that the Prime Minister has given an edict that all Cabinet Ministers must vote for it—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Oh, rubbish! Absolute rubbish!

That rumour is circulating. Maybe the member could take a call and explain that to us, but that rumour is certainly making the rounds. This bill should be dumped. If we want to address this industry, we should draw the New Zealand First bill out of the ballot and bring in legislation that protects women, along the lines of the Swedish model.

I wish to speak on the title of this Prostitution Reform Bill. Although the title is three words in length, I think only two are relevant. When I went to the dictionary to look up the word “reform”, I found some interesting little meanings. There was “to form anew”. How does one form anew a prostitute? That is an interesting question. Then there was “to improve for the better”.

💬 Peter Brown: The member’s getting all kinky.

That is right. There was “to give up a reprehensible habit”, and I cannot understand how that can work, either. And “reform” means “to improve, or improvement of, morals”. That is the exact quote.

I would agree with the previous speaker that this bill is filled with contradictions and confusion, as the word “reform” also spells out to us. We cannot have “reform” if we are to make things in the entire industry worse. I cannot understand that, and neither can anyone else. If the endeavour of this bill is to decriminalise prostitution, we have got to a place where we have to take some of that back and criminalise some other parts of it. The confusion for everybody, and the difficulty of putting that into order, will be incredible. So as it stands, I see both the “reform” as well as the “bill” part of the title as bad law.

One of the questions I have been worried about is whom this bill is set up for. In other words, who will be better off, if that is the promoter’s intention? If I look at the history of New Zealand and just look at us, or if I start from the Māori people who came here earlier, I would very much question whether Māori people will be better off under this particular legislation. I do not think that even recent immigrants, later than the Pākehā influx, would have had prostitution on their minds when they came to this nation. I look at Samoans and at other Pacific Islanders like Tongans, Niueans, and Cook Islanders, and I ask them whether it was their intention to come to a nation that would have that industry as an open market programme. I do not believe it was.

When I asked the Asian people with whom I have contact in Auckland whether prostitution was on their minds when they came here, and when I talked to an Iranian doctor the other day, they said very certainly, “No”. In fact, the Iranian doctor is so concerned that he has taken his child out of a school in Auckland and put her into an Islamic school, so that she will not be exposed to this thought-line. I have talked to people from Thailand, Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, and none of them have said that prostitution is why they came here. They are concerned about this bill. I talked to some Ethiopians the other day, and they are very concerned about it. I would have thought it was very important for the promoter of this bill to figure out which people it would make better off.

It is for me, at this point in the debate on the title, to say with clarity that I will vote against this bill. I am certain that as it stands, this bill will cause every ethnic group and everybody else in this nation both embarrassment and a sense of degradation and great loss, for this generation as well as for future generations.

Members in this Committee today need to know that New Zealand First opposes this bill, as proposed by Mr Barnett. Prostitution, irrespective of whether it is decriminalised or legalised, is always incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person, and endangers the welfare of the individual, the family, and the community. My entry into Parliament was stabilised by my swearing-in on the Bible and paying allegiance to the Queen, to my country, and to my God. It seems to me that this Parliament pays no respect to our God, the creator of all things on this earth, for if it did, this bill would not be before us today.

Many, many parents work on creating an exciting atmosphere in their homes. They let their children be exposed to great minds and great ideas, to everlasting truth, and to those things that build and motivate for good. Where in this bill—I repeat: where in this bill—is there any motivation to do good, positive, and wholesome activities? I am astonished when I hear members utter words to the effect that they would not be happy to have their daughters involved with prostitution, and then turn round and support this bill. That goes beyond my comprehension.

Yes, we are living in a so-called democratic society, where we are all free to choose, to petition, and to demonstrate within the laws of the land. But let me remind us all that there is a consequence to the choices we make. In my inaugural speech to the House, I stated the precepts of Plato that we should forget personal interests and aim at the public advantage, making that the object of all our efforts. How will this bill advantage the public and the individual? I do not know whether those who subscribe to this bill understand what the word “wrong” means. To that end, I say that if this bill is passed—and I hope and pray that it is not—then we in this Parliament will be held accountable by a higher law for the corruption, the immorality, and the decaying of our society, and, if we are not careful, for the collapse of this nation.

I advocate to my fellow parliamentarians that this bill is not right for the social structure of our nation and its people. I say to those who are in the throes of introducing amendments that their amendments just gloss over the facts, and they will never hide the true picture. So let us get real and put our feet on the ground. I implore us all to consider honestly what the outcomes of this legislation will be. We should think about the repercussions that will eventuate from this legislation and about the effects it will have on our families and on society. Those who vote for this bill will be held responsible for the degradation and collapse of family structure, which good people are endeavouring to keep together in an unstable world.

This afternoon on the steps of Parliament, representatives from the Labour, New Zealand First, and United Future parties accepted petitions from many marae throughout the country, led by Mr Monty Ohia. Let me say this: the majority of Māori are against this bill, and they have expressed their reasons for that very clearly. Kei te pōuri i roto i taku ngākau i tēnei wā nā te mea, ētahi o tātou kei te pōti mō te pire nei. I am sad within my heart that some of us are voting for this bill. I ngā wā o mua, mai rā anō i te hekenga mai o ngā waka ki Aotearoa, kāore ngā mātua tīpuna i aua wā e tautoko ana ki ngā mahi kawau. Our ancestors, before and since their arrival in Aotearoa, have never supported prostitution.

I believe that this bill is setting a legislative direction that will cause huge harm to New Zealand society. If we are to make reforms in the area of prostitution, then there are other areas that are equally worthy for us to make reforms in. With regard to prostitution, the arguments in favour of this bill appear to be that, firstly, men and women are engaged in prostitution and are being exploited by pimps, and that therefore, by bringing this bill into enactment, we will reduce that exploitation. Secondly, prostitutes feel trapped in the industry. They feel coerced, particularly because the industry is dominated by gangs and also because they have a need for money.

The third argument is that prostitutes lack self-esteem. All those things inhibit them from leaving the industry. It is thought that passing this bill will make it easier for prostitutes to leave the industry, and prostitution will decrease. The fourth argument is that because prostitution is illegal, those proposing the bill say that that inhibits prostitutes from seeking help; and, again, that inhibits them from seeking to exit the industry.

Fifthly, working conditions are poor. Prostitutes do not have the same recourse to occupational safety and health, accident compensation, and other oversight agencies in order to ensure that their working conditions are at least as good as everybody else’s. The sixth argument is that, realistically, prosititution will never be stamped out—that it is wasting police resources, that we are never going to get rid of prostitution completely so we might as well legitimise it. Seventhly, the argument is that it is a victimless offence engaged in through the willing consent of adults, and that we should not interfere with that.

Well, prostitution is not the only industry to which those seven factors apply. They apply equally to the homebake industry—to people who are trapped in the industry of manufacturing drugs in home kitchens for the use of other people. If we go through those same points we see that women engaged in the homebake industry are also being exploited by people who are drug dealers and drug pushers. We see that women often feel trapped in that industry by coercion because gangs are involved, by their need for money, and by their lack of self-esteem. Because the homebake industry is illegal, it inhibits such people from seeking help in order to exit from it. The working conditions are poor. Its workers have to work in houses, and have no access to occupational safety and health, accident compensation, or other agencies. Realistically we are never going to be able to stamp out drug dealing and homebake manufacture. That is a waste of police resources. So why, some might argue, should we continue to make it illegal?

Some would claim that supplying homebake is a victimless offence; the use of drugs is willingly consented to by adults. Homebake is manufactured and sold to people who willingly use it, so maybe the proponents of the Prostitution Reform Bill should now be advocating to us that we legalise its manufacture in order to decriminalise it, and so that people involved in homebake are better able to obtain help to get out of the industry. I see the same dangers in that as I do with this—that when as a Parliament we lower the moral standards within our country and accept things that are harmful to individuals and to society, there is no end to how low we can go. We, as members of a legislature, have responsibility for upholding those standards. If we do not do it, who will do it?

Now, if we were to decriminalise homebake, we would make it easier for people to get help to get out of the industry. We would allow occupational safety and health regulations, and hygiene and fire regulations. We would make people less guilty about being involved in homebake. We could put safeguards in place. We could try to stop gangs from owning homebake kitchens. We could license people, as Phil Goff wants to do, so that people who had committed serious offences could not be involved in the homebake industry. We could put advertising restrictions in place so that the homebake industry could not advertise in suburban areas or near schools. We could make it illegal to procure children to help in the homebake industry, or to sell homebake to children.

Will those patch-up remedies—which are what we are advocating for the Prostitution Reform Bill—remedy the essential problem? Will they lessen the occurrence of homebake and reduce the amount of drugs in our society? Certainly not! Society will change for the worse if we allow this bill. We will have advertising in newspapers, on television, and over the radio for prostitution, and we will see “in your face” signage on buildings.

Ā, tēnā koe e te Heamana. Ā, ngā mihi ki a tātou katoa. He mihi hoki ki te tuahine, mai i Tainui mō ōna whakaaro ki te whakahē i te pire nei. Kei te tatari mai i a au i ōna tungāne tokowhā i tautoko mai i tēnei pire. E aha ana te tino pūtake, i tautokongia rātou te āhuatanga o te pire nei nā te mea, kei te whakapae te nuinga o te iwi Māori. Ā, nā te mea kei te whakapae te nuinga o te iwi Māori, kei hea ngā mema Māori o te Kāwanatanga nei i runga tēnei kaupapa? E aha ana te take kei te noho wahangungu i a rātou? Tēnā pea, e tika ana te kōrero o tōku rangatira, a Winitana. He toa rātou i runga i te marae, he rēme i roto i te Whare nei.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairman, and greetings to us all. An acknowledgment as well to our sister member from Tainui for her thoughts about why she is against this bill. I am waiting here for her four brother members who supported this bill. What is the real reason they supported this bill and its effects, because the majority of Māoridom are against it? Because the majority of Māoridom are against it, where does that place the Māori members of this Government in relation to this policy? Perhaps what my leader Winston Peters has stated is correct: they are bold on the marae, but meek in this House.]

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, and, in particular, to express my own views pertaining to the Prostitution Reform Bill now before this Committee. I should state from the outset that I do not support the bill, and cannot see my way clear to do so, even with the proposed amendments. I, like a great number of members of this House, came to Parliament with the hope of making a difference. That meant making New Zealand a better place for ensuing generations. I do not, for one minute, consider this bill to be in the best interest of our country and the people of New Zealand, irrespective of one’s moral, social, and cultural background. However, in considering a cultural perspective, I should say that as someone of Māori descent, who has been fortunate enough to have been raised with values that have included Māori ones, the notion of any abuse of te whare tangata—in other words, any activity that debases women in the way that prostitution does—threatens the whole concept of whanaungatanga, and, indeed, of whakapapa. [Interruption] Engari, pai atu tēnā mema ki te whakahē waku kōrero engari ahakoa ko te iwi Māori i tautokongia i roto i tēnei Whare, engari kua hē rawa atu wana whakaaro ki ngā kaitautoko i a ia.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[But it is fine for that member to say that what I am saying is wrong, and that the Māori people were supported in this House. Yet to the ones who support him, what he thinks is absolutely wrong to them.]

Whanaungatanga is the deeply ingrained concept that requires the desire to unite or link individuals with one another. My observations of some of the consequences from the activities of prostitution have seen the numbers grow, albeit small in number, to my tribe.

I had a grand-auntie, who, as a consequence of the involvement of one of her mokopuna in this profession, was left with three children. That aunt and the rest of her tribe feel bereft of being able to link those children with the whanaungatanga I talk about. That imposed a burden on my aged auntie, in terms of the care and protection that she had to afford those children. This bill, however, will certainly lead to an increase in those who might choose, or be coerced into, this profession. Is this the direction in which we want to take our country? I believe that it is not, and that we should oppose this bill.

Does the bill make prostitution safer? I know that that member who represents the urban Māori of Auckland thinks that it does. In fact, it will increase the need for greater safety measures. I do not believe that those who have supported this bill are promoting the evils of child prostitution, or corruption, but I believe that the introduction of this bill has already signalled a possible increase in the numbers of those who participate in this profession. Already we have had a person with a legal background advocating the lowering of the age of consent for sex, and I need to say that that is as a consequence of this bill.

I rise to speak to the title debate of this bill, and, as has been said earlier, I do not believe that “Prostitution Reform Bill” is an adequate or fitting title for this legislation. I suggest that the more appropriate title would be the “Increased Profit and Control for Pimps and Human Flesh Exploiters Bill”, because that really is what this bill is about. This industry is, at the very least, a multibillion-dollar industry—possibly a trillion-dollar industry—in the world. I hesitate even to use the word “industry”, because it produces nothing of any benefit for society. But, worldwide, millions—billions—of dollars are made out of prostitution, and I believe that this bill is about the opportunity to increase the profit for pimping and for brothel keeping. It is those aspects of the bill that disturb me the most.

I wish to draw a little parallel with the legislation that went through in 1999 about lowering the drinking age. I had a personal experience at that time when I made a submission to the select committee, appealing to it—really pleading to it—to consider what that legislation would do to our society in New Zealand. And we have seen the fruit of it, not just the lowering of the drinking age, but the increased availability of alcohol and so on. We have seen what it has done to our young people. I remember Phil Goff, who is now the Minister of Justice, sitting in that select committee and I was very proud of him at that time. I considered him to be a man of integrity, because he had the wisdom to know that that bill would not produce anything good for this country, and he opposed it.

But now as he sits as the Minister of Justice and makes a decision on this bill, he believes that he can solve all the problems in this bill by just some amendments, even though the amendments keep growing day by day as they find more and more problems with each amendment they put forward. I believe that Phil Goff understood then that that bill was not about the rights of 19 and 18-year-olds to be able to drink, because they already were doing so, but it was really about the increased sales potential and profits for the breweries. One year after that bill was passed I remember very clearly the headline in the paper saying “Lion Breweries increase sales 13 percent”. That was 1 year after that legislation was passed.

I contend that it will be exactly the same if this bill is passed. We will see an increase in profit, not just for nice employers, but for black market employers, and gangs. In fact, articles are already appearing in newspapers about gangs already fighting over the turf that they will control when they can begin to operate more effectively. They already do operate, but they will begin to gain even a greater market share as they are able to operate with impunity.

This legislation opens the door for the increased control and commercialisation of sexual services that will benefit pimps and brothel owners, not the poor individual prostitutes at the bottom of the supply chain. They will continue to be exploited by those who trade in human flesh, and that is what it is all about.

Most people in the public who support the bill do not understand what this bill does. They say: “I think it’s a good idea, because it will make things better for prostitutes.”, and that is quite a reasonable response. We all want to make life better for those who are in this very dehumanising occupation. But when one asks people in the public how it will benefit them, they say “Well, that’s what it’s supposed to do, isn’t it? I mean that’s what we’ve heard in the press.” When one presses them a little further and asks them to tell us how it will accomplish that, they really do not know. When it is explained to them that this bill actually legalises pimping, and some of the implications of that, they are shocked and immediately change their minds and begin to oppose the bill. Nobody in their right mind would want to decriminalise pimping in our society, and to allow someone to profit from the sale of the flesh of someone else is to me absolutely appalling. It is the worst occupation that anybody could be involved with.

I do not believe we are asking the right questions. Some of the concerns of those who support this bill have to do with the current complaints that some of the prostitutes who are working now in massage parlours—

I have decided to take a call on the title, because I want to set out my general position on this issue. It would be of use perhaps to know that I chaired the committee for 18 months. I heard all of the submissions. I was part of the trip when members of the committee went to Australia, to Victoria and New South Wales. Of course, like every other member of the House, I have had hundreds of letters, and I have endeavoured to reply to each and every one of them. As I heard the evidence—and members have to recognise that we do not look at this issue in vacuum; there is already a fabric of legislation that exists in this country. For instance, prostitution is not a crime in New Zealand. Often that is not understood, but it is a fact. In 1978 this Parliament passed the Massage Parlours Act. Many of us would recognise that what goes on behind some of those closed doors would amount to prostitution.

💬 Dail Jones: It wasn’t the intention then.

It was not the intention then, although I must say I have spoken to some members of Parliament who were present in the Parliament at the time and asked them why they voted for it. I suspect that Mr Jones was not one of those who voted for it. I asked those members what they contemplated they were doing. Most of the people I have spoken to said that they understood that in reality a degree of prostitution would take place in massage parlours. We have a rather odd situation in New Zealand where we have a law that in de facto terms—not in de jure terms—is quite similar to the law of Victoria. I believe that only some small changes are needed in the existing law.

So I make it clear that I am opposed to the overall focus of this bill, because I do not believe we should be legalising brothels, or living off the earnings, or procuring. All of those are serious offences under the Crimes Act and I believe they should remain so. I do not believe that when people think of brothels they imagine that that would encompass a prostitute’s own apartment, or, indeed, an apartment rented for the purpose.

I believe we have an opportunity, essentially, to change the law in such a way that fits contemporary practice by the police. Every day of the week, police cars will drive past prostitutes who are soliciting and ignore them unless it is blatant, offensive, or something of that nature. Similarly, we know for a fact that prostitutes who use their own apartment, or another apartment, for the purposes of prostitution are not prosecuted. We heard evidence that prostitutes can go down to their local police station, be photographed, and those details supplied to the local newspapers, and then those newspapers will accept advertisements that—how can I put it—euphemistically offer sexual services. But anyone who reads those advertisements knows full well the intent behind them.

There is an informal arrangement, although it is not illegal, whereby there is a degree of facilitation by the New Zealand Police, by the newspapers, and by the men and women involved in prostitution—for it encompasses both genders—whereby it is controlled. So the point of the amendments that I have moved is that they work alongside the amendments opposed by Mr Gordon Copeland. Essentially, the amendments regularise current practice by changing the law. I believe that the country would see that as a reasonable measure.

I have polled the North Shore electorate, and they support these changes. We ran a scientific telephone poll where we phoned 150 residents taken randomly from the electorate roll. We asked three questions. The first question was whether people thought soliciting should be a crime. The answer was fifty-fifty. The second question was whether people thought approaching prostitutes should be a crime. An overwhelming 80 people opposed this. The final question was whether brothels should be legalised. Surprisingly, the answer was 60-40 in favour of that. So there is a degree of intent to liberalise. Certainly the one thing that could be concluded—apart from a smallish minority in the community—is that there is no will at all to significantly tighten up the law. For instance the amendments proposed by Dianne Yates in particular, and Mark Alexander, would not have broad community consent.

💬 Peter Brown: How do you know that?

Because I polled the electorate by way of a scientific poll. If the member had cared to listen to what I just said, he would have heard that. This is one of those issues where we all get the right to exercise our own conscience. But I think on an issue like this, we have an obligation and a duty to consult the electorates. We should not be here simply to exercise our own conscience on an issue of this nature. We should be attempting to recognise community views. From what I saw, I do not believe that these modest changes that I am proposing would change the character of the way things are done at the moment. It would essentially be a confirmatory step, and I do not expect that prostitution would dramatically increase.

I am very pleased that this Bill has come before the House, and I am very pleased to stand to support it. I again refer to the aims of the Bill, which I think are excellent. The Bill has stated aims to safeguard the human rights of sex workers, protecting them from exploitation; promoting the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers; creating environments that are conducive to public health, and protecting children from exploitation in relation to prostitution.

I agree with the comment by Gordon Copeland that this is a moral issue, and we have to make our decisions based on morality. He said that all laws going through Parliament have a moral dimension, and that we legislate from our morality every single day. I agree with that. I received the same emails that most members of this House did from Christians, telling me that I will burn in hell if I support this Bill. I get really angry with people who use the name of the Messiah—our king, my king—to put forward a point of view that is in total contradiction to everything He ever taught or lived by. I think He was referring to people like that when He said: “These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.” He was a man who lived a highly moral life, so let us follow that example; let our morality guide our decisions, and let our decisions be righteous decisions. But they should not be self-righteous decisions—there is a distinct difference. I am a man of faith; I read the Bible, I love my creator, and I have an obligation to follow the precepts that Jah has set down for I and I, but I do not have an obligation to try and force my morality on other people. When my decisions affect other people, my obligation is to minimise harm to those people, and to increase individual and collective self-determination as much as possible.

I agree with some of the things that Bill Gudgeon said—not with his highly romanticised views of Māori history, but about looking back to the Bible—and I agree with the words of Paul Adams in that regard. The Bible is very instructive when it comes to prostitution law reform. There is a very good illustration where a group of men want to stone a prostitute to death. The man says: “Let those who are without sin cast the first stone.” He then says: “Who condemns you? Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” He does not lock her up in prison, and he does not call the cops. He says: “Go.”

💬 Peter Brown: Don’t selectively quote from the Bible.

Peter Brown needs to read the story again, I think. It is very instructive. Another example of His words is when he says: “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” So let us look to the Bible, and let us go back to Christian principles when examining how we are going to vote on this Bill.

I would also like to mention the words of Marc Alexander. In his previous speech, he said: “The removal of legal consequences of prostitution is only a hop away from the ethical approval of prostitution. That is nothing more than political correctness dressed up in a whore’s skirt and hoisted above the ethical Plimsoll line.” He has an interesting taste in words. Again, when we apply those words to the example that the man himself, Iesus Kristos, gave us, I find such comments highly offensive, and anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian should also do so.

I would like to move to some of the practical issues associated with the bill. Some people who spoke previously said that the bill would make the situation worse for sex workers. I return to the comments of my colleague Sue Bradford, who pointed out that some of the strongest opposition to the bill has come from massage parlour owners, and there is pretty much unanimous support for it from sex workers themselves, so I do not see that that argument holds much water. Will this legislation expand the industry? The select committee report states very clearly that there is no evidence that prostitution law reform will do that. It might make the industry more visible, but that is part of it being illegal, and our not being able to know what goes on now.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am just alerting the Chair to the fact that today Standing Order 178 was suspended for the rest of the session up to December. I was quite interested in the conclusion to the member for the Green Party’s speech. In the event that he wants to seek a second call, it is over to you to give him the opportunity to do so.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): In order to finish, we have tried to do that with several members. If the member winds it up at 6 o’clock, we will not interrupt.

I thank Mr Tamihere for that contribution. I just wanted to finish with one small point, which is that one of the crucial aspects of this bill is that it makes provision for a prostitution law review committee. I think that is crucial. We have heard a lot of wild speculation about the effects of legislation in other jurisdictions, and it is crucial that we actually develop some real evidence as to the effect of this legislation. I totally support that. I would like to see more of the legislation going through this House being subject to some kind of review and evaluation.

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

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): Before the dinner break, I was reminding Nandor Tanczos that in debates on the bill, this House has not been standing in judgment of prostitutes. We have been debating a bill that legalises and decriminalises prostitution, and I am saddened that the member tried to say we were all standing in judgment of them.

With reference to the title, Dr Mapp said he had taken polls in his electorate. I suggest that he asked people the wrong questions. Had he asked whether they supported the legalisation and decriminalisation of trafficking in women and drugs, I think he would have got a resoundingly different answer. That is the real purpose of this bill. The words “Prostitution Reform” make the title a misnomer. It is not a reform. The report of the Justice and Electoral Committee states: “Prostitution itself is not an illegal activity in New Zealand. However, a range of offences can be committed in association with acts of prostitution and the law is such that for most forms of prostitution, it is likely a law will be broken at some stage. The purpose of the bill is to decriminalise such activities and make prostitution subject to special provisions in addition to the laws and controls that regulate other businesses.”

Let us look at what that actually means. The promoter of this bill, Tim Barnett, tried to tell us that he and his Government want to see prostitution decriminalised, so that prostitutes themselves feel free to approach the law to get help. I suggest that this bill will not achieve that; it will automatically decriminalise all the peripheral businesses that surround prostitution. Those businesses include trafficking in women and children, and that activity will be decriminalised and promoted. This bill will also promote and decriminalise the other most serious of businesses surrounding prostitution—the drug business. Prostitution and drugs go hand in hand, and this bill decriminalises that activity. It saddens me that Tim Barnett would have us believe that the purpose of the bill is the well-being of the prostitute and the public at large. He says he wants to safeguard the human rights of sex workers and protect them from exploitation, but this bill misses the mark completely. It will ultimately legitimise other industries around prostitution.

It is important to note that there are a raft of Supplementary Order Papers on the Table of the House that are trying to soften the purpose of this bill and bring it back to the status quo. They will not do that. We will lose sight of the real purpose of this bill, which is the legalisation and decriminalisation of all the peripheral industries associated with prostitution. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that decriminalising those businesses will be the downfall of this bill. Bringing in these Supplementary Order Papers to try to soften it will only cause us to lose sight of the real purpose of this bill. We will fall into the trap of voting for some of them, thinking that we are trying to bring legislation back to the status quo. They will not do that. We must follow our real purpose, look at the real reason behind this bill, and vote against it.

In speaking to the bill, I will come at it from a different aspect. I went into a shop the other day, and a young girl was sitting behind the counter wearing a T-shirt inscribed with the words: “It is all about me”. I smiled and asked her whether she really believed that. Life is not about “I”; it is about “us”. As computer experts tell us: “Junk in equals junk out”. I believe that humans are divinely made, yet to a certain extent all of us will be programmed by what happens to us in life. I believe that Governments are responsible for much of the programming of New Zealanders by means of the laws we pass. We effectively tell people what is acceptable and what is not. I believe that this legislation gives the wrong message to sensible New Zealanders.

Let me give an example of how life can programme us. We are all born of a mother, and I do not believe that there are any exceptions to that. Yet life does not produce the same results for each of us. Why is that? Life itself begins to programme us long before we ever reach the age of understanding. Take little children, for example; and I have two young grandsons. We pick them up, throw them in the air, and catch them. They laugh and have fun; they love it. Sadly, some children are picked up and just thrown. That produces a far different result—it brings fear into their lives. As adults we may get mugged in the street, and we think twice before going out alone. If we have been burgled, we think twice about leaving our doors open.

Life’s experiences affect our programming. A single breakdown can introduce a note of mistrust, which, if not corrected, means that we are never as free again as we should be. Betrayed once as partners, or children, we become reluctant to give ourselves wholly and unconditionally to another person. We keep our distance, lower our expectations, stay cool, aloof, and separate. When that happens, something of our world has been lost, and it is not something small or insignificant. Love freely given and freely received, the sharing of a life, is the most profound experience to free us from loneliness. That is why I am a great supporter of permanent relationships. However, a family that is not working correctly—and we see many in this nation—can be one of the most damaging places on this earth.

That brings me to this bill. If it is passed, it will make it far more acceptable for somebody to cheat on his or her partner. Most people in a permanent relationship would not find that acceptable. Indeed, it could be the very thing that destroys the permanent relationship, bringing devastation to any children involved. Nothing has brought more destruction into people’s lives in this nation than the destruction of relationships. Those who have had to live through that pain and heartache know what I am talking about.

So as we consider this bill tonight, my question to members is have they considered the children? In our culture, the many things that were once combined and enjoyed in a permanent relationship—sex, affection, friendship, love, bringing new life into the world, caring for that new life, and for one another—have all been separated, so that the one is no longer expected to entail the other. Because of that breakdown, children have been affected more than any other party. Many have lost the ability to love, trust, and openly share their lives with another.

If we want any hope of living in a civilised society, I believe we all have a responsibility to rebuild the family. Being unfaithful to our partners is not the way to build a family. If we can believe what we are told, over 60 percent of the male clients of prostitutes are married. What percentage is therefore in a permanent relationship? A family is a great challenge at the best of times, and this legislation will do nothing to build relationships and trust in one another, which is something we desperately need to see again in our nation. We must therefore build relationships and families. Our moral sense will not allow children to continue to be neglected. Humanity has survived because of its capacity to impose the necessary sacrifices to protect its young. I, for one, do not want to be part of a society that when judged by history will show that it has campaigned for the protection of animals, birds, rare plant species, whales, and rainforests, while failing to hear the cry of our own children. If we pass this legislation, I believe we will be ignoring the heart-cry of young children in this nation, who long to have a dad and a mum committed to each other and to their families.

The family will yet again prove to be the axis on which our moral world will turn. We have to learn to take the focus off ourselves, and learn that we are bound to others. Together, we are the co-authors of our world. Far from being the institution we can least affect, the family is the one that we can most affect, because it is made or unmade by our choices. This bill has the same ability to destroy as a car driving down the wrong side of the road. There is a line we should not cross, and this proposed law is one of them.

It was not my original intention to speak in this debate, but when I heard the deputy leader of New Zealand First range through the suggested amendments and envisaged changes to this legislation this afternoon—and knowing his intense interest in promoting a sound member’s bill—I went back and looked carefully at the bill. The reason that I stand is this: I have heard a number of eloquent and clear speeches given in advocacy for and against the bill, but the one thing that stands out for me quite clearly has come about from my recent teaching background, particularly in low-decile schools, where I have pointed young people toward a career choice for life on the basis of a sound educational system. This may cause smiles among those on the Government side of the Chamber, but I believe that this bill promotes prostitution as a desirable occupation. If I went back to the far north, to Kaikohe and, when my former students asked me whether I had voted for the bill to decriminalise prostitution I said yes, I would be defying all my years spent as a teacher and a principal who has tried to achieve the very highest aims and achievements for students—both Māori and Pākehā.

I endorse the stand taken by Peter Brown, the deputy leader of New Zealand First, and by my fellow caucus members. In conclusion, I say that our caucus’ stand was not taken lightly; we have discussed these matters at length within our caucus. This is a carefully considered stand taken by party members from throughout the country, but particularly by those from the Māori world, who have an understanding of the issues that are before the Committee.

I will digress for a minute to say that like Peter Brown, I worked for some years as a “seagull” as a youngster, and I saw those girls scurrying up the gangplank before it had even hit the deck, and I heard all the derision, calls, and language that one could imagine that went with it. That was my first experience of this activity, and I felt immensely sorry as I heard those seasoned wharfies call those girls—who were mainly Māori—all the names under the sun. That was the background almost 40 years ago, and ever since then that whole activity has been one that I have deplored.

There is a Christian background as well with regard to my personal attitude, but that has not been influential here. It really comes back to young people who are looking ahead, and to Māori students in particular—because I am talking about the far north—who are having to make choices, and having to decide for themselves and their whānau as to where they will go in the future. This is not an occupation that I would desire for my daughter, and I certainly would not desire it for anyone else’s daughter. I have heard in a range of speeches the various ways by which people drop into, or become part of, this activity, but none of them meet the criteria for giving support to this bill.

I rise to speak in support of this bill, and particularly of its title. I consider that in debating this topic we must be careful that we do not deal in sounds instead of sense, in caprice instead of reason, and in darkness instead of light. There can be no argument as to the fact that, for the majority of New Zealanders, prostitution is immoral. But because an activity is immoral is not, in itself, a sufficient reason to make that activity illegal. We can think of adultery, of promiscuous consenting sex, and of charging people in need the maximum price when the supplier can afford to charge them less than that. So what may be immoral is not always illegal.

What, then, is the morality of making the activities associated with prostitution illegal? It is drawing a long bow to say that the acts associated with prostitution are harmful to other members of society. Do we therefore justify making this activity illegal because it offends our morality? Or, to put it another way, is the preservation of an existing morality itself a value that justifies the use of coercion? I say “coercion” because we are dealing here with a criminal law. Criminal law works on the pain and pleasure principle—the principles analysed by the utilitarian school of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The theory of criminal punishment is that the punishment of an offender often and severely enough will make the individual turn toward pleasure, and thus modify his or her behaviour to avoid the consequences of painful enforcement.

Clearly, the present system is not working, because the scaremongering figures I have heard this afternoon quoted by opponents of this bill would see a huge industry of immorality, teetering on the edge of moral and social anarchy. Yet not one of the opponents of the bill has taken moves before this bill came to the House to seek to increase any enforcement penalties. Clearly the opponents of the bill either do not have evidence that the immorality of prostitution and its associated activities are out of control, or they believe that the status quo is the best of a bad job.

Let us talk sense instead of sounds. Sense tells us that if there is a problem that can be controlled by criminal sanction, then we would welcome the evidence on which to make a rational decision. Clause 9N of the bill provides us with the opportunity to make a rational decision. The Prostitution Law Review Committee is empowered under this bill to gather the evidence and to place it before this House, to enable us to bring in considered legislation. That legislation may be to strengthen the laws against prostitution, but, equally—and more probably—it may be to bring in a rational set of decriminalisation, allowing prostitution to continue for those who favour that immoral activity, because it affects the activities of those who are not involved with it very little, if at all.

Let us talk reason and not caprice. It is a simple fact that the overwhelming majority of the many submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the bill believed decriminalisation would be a positive step for the community good. To argue against that is to argue against the evidence. Let us talk light instead of darkness. If we are to analyse this problem, let us get away from the scaremongering and the quoting of numbers without justification. Let us avoid the moral deceit of justifying a moral outrage with invented figures. Let us see what we are talking about. We are talking about an industry and an activity that even our police force does not know the extent of. If the police force does not know the extent of it, then how can the opponents point to one reliable figure to justify their claim that this bill will lead to moral decay and social anarchy?

Let us talk light instead of darkness. Let us bring some rational sense to that industry. Let us bring some rational sense to that area of immorality. Let us find out what really happens, and we can do that by removing the laws that drive that activity underground—by removing the laws that the activity hides behind, such as the Massage Parlours Act. We should also remove the restrictions that apply to the activity under the Resource Management Act. Let us get a level playing field, and then see where we are going. A clear explanation of the issues will give us a light with which to debate this topic.

💬 Larry Baldock: Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The honourable member has already had three calls. If he wishes to seek another call he needs the leave of the Committee.

💬 Larry Baldock: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understood that I could have four calls.

💬 John Carter: We may have to seek a wider leave than that. I think there was an understanding at the Business Committee and as a consequence of the motion that I put at the beginning of the Committee stage, which was accepted, that members would be able to take multiple calls beyond four calls. If you feel that there is still that restriction it might be useful for me to seek leave to waive it now, so that members can take more than four calls. Accordingly, I seek leave for that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for that clarification. The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

I thank the Committee for that. I know that we want to move on to the substantive parts of the bill, but I do feel that I need to take this last call on the title in order to complete some comments I was making earlier, and also to respond to Russell Fairbrother’s comments. Again we have heard a misinformation campaign being promoted in this Parliament. Russell Fairbrother and I had an excellent debate in Napier a few weeks ago, when we aired the topic quite well.

We continually hear the statement that somehow out of moralising against prostitution we are criminalising it. On behalf of those of us who are opposed to this bill I say again that it is not illegal for women to engage in prostitution in New Zealand. It is clearly not illegal, and I am astounded that we continually hear that statement. When the bill was beginning to be formed and the situation of prostitution in New Zealand was looked at, it was noticed that there were some problems. One of the problems was in the massage parlour industry, where prostitutes were being mistreated by their employers. I ask tonight why nobody thought about making some amendments to the Massage Parlours Act to address those concerns, instead of going down the road of decriminalising the whole industry in order to try to solve some very minor problems.

One of the problems, of course, is that it was not made clear when the Massage Parlours Act came into force whether a room in a massage parlour was a public place. As a result some prostitutes have been harassed for soliciting in massage parlours. To me it would seem to be a very simple thing to propose an amendment to that Act, stating for the sake of clarity that a room in a massage parlour would not be a public place and that whatever activity went on in such a room between a woman and a man would therefore not be affected by the law.

The genius of the Massage Parlours Act, which we are really missing in this debate, is that that Act enabled women to work independently of pimping. While it was a nod-nod, wink-wink kind of situation for prostitution, that Act did provide greater independence for women working as prostitutes in the massage parlour industry. As their employers—massage parlour owners—were legitimate employers, it was entirely appropriate for those women to approach the Department of Labour and to address any of the concerns they have with such things as fines, bonds, and the things that we heard, through the process of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s consideration of the bill, that they are complaining about. I understand that almost two-thirds of prostitutes work in that environment, and since 1978 that environment has given them some very useful protection. I warn the prostitutes of New Zealand that if they are exploited now, they will exploited much more if this bill goes through and the full impact of legalised pimping is able to have an effect upon them.

Many other prostitutes are independent operators, and they have no legal impediments to their self-employed status, at all. In fact, the Inland Revenue Department currently has a booklet to help them know how to pay their taxes. That is why it is such a nonsense to go around saying that a prostitute cannot operate in this country without—

💬 Sue Bradford: But what about the people who were arrested in Auckland last month?

Women get arrested for street soliciting because it is illegal under the legislation. The police act sometimes because the soliciting is going on in places where it should not be, or because it may be going on inappropriately. The good thing is that the police are able to step in and act when they need to, often in order to protect either the lives of the prostitutes themselves or the public who are being affected. It is a very good thing to have that happen. If we decriminalise prostitution and the police therefore do not bother to intervene at all, there will be far worse consequences. I do not think that 12 prostitutes being arrested a few weeks ago in Auckland, out of the supposed 8,000 who operate in this country, is a major concern.

If we do have 8,000 prostitutes in this country we already have the highest rate of prostitution per population in the Western World. Would this bill lead to an increased number? No one knows for sure, though all the overseas evidence points to the very possibility of an increase. But maybe New Zealand is already saturated, because we have had a very liberalised environment here for the last 10 or 15 years.

They did do research on prostitution in Sweden. Russell Fairbrother made the comment that the problem in this country is that we do not know the real state of the sex industry, and said we should investigate that before we pass laws. In Sweden they investigated the situation for 4 years, in order to make sure they knew what the situation was and to monitor the changes that might occur after the law had been passed. That would be a very wise thing for us to do in New Zealand. In Sweden, they discovered that one in eight adult men were using prostitutes. Let us just think about that. One in eight is quite a high ratio, but Sweden has only 2,500 prostitutes for a population of 8 million. We are constantly being told that we have 8,000 prostitutes for a population that is half that size. I hate to think what the ratio might be if those figures are true. I do not believe that there are more than one in eight men in New Zealand using prostitutes each week. I do not think we really know what the situation is. When this bill is passed it will be far too easy for the review panel to claim that things have not changed, because we really do not know what they are like before we pass this bill.

If massage parlour operators or workers have problems at present, the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective can do a very good job of helping them to address those concerns through the Department of Labour, because they are covered by current employment law. There is no need for this bill to be passed in order to give prostitutes protection from our current law. They already have protections under the Human Rights Act and our employment laws. One has to ask the question, though, of why we are doing all this for 8,000—if that is the correct number—women. We are all concerned for their situation, but we have to think about some other people in society, as well.

It is admirable in a democracy for the majority to care for a small minority, but very little has been said about some of the other silent majorities in this country. Prostitutes estimate that 75 percent of their clients are married men. Who is speaking up in this debate for the approximately 75,000 married women who do not know what is going on? What about the sexual health of those married women? We are focusing our attention on the sexual health of perhaps 8,000 prostitutes, but there are 75,000 wives who do not know where their husbands have been, and their sexual health is of concern to us. If I had to decide between the two, I would stand up for those who are in the dark and do not know what is going on, rather than those who know exactly what they are doing and can take steps to protect themselves, if they so wish. I thank the Chair for his indulgence.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 to omit the word “reform” and substitute the word “perform” is ruled out of order, as it is not an objective description of the bill’s contents.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the words “Prostitution Reform Act”, and substitute the words “Decriminalisation of Prostitution and Related Activities Act”.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gordon Copeland to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the words “Prostitution Reform Act 2000”, and substitute the words “Prostitution Solicitation, Pimping, and Brothel-keeping Decriminalisation Act 2003”.

Amendment not agreed to.

I seek leave for the remaining debate on this bill to be structured along the lines I intend to describe, with the sole intention of helping to put some structure in the debate for the remaining time we debate this bill in Committee. Would the Committee like me to go through that in some detail?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes. The member can then seek leave of the Committee.

This has been circulated to all members, and copies are available on the Table here. We agreed right at the beginning of the Committee stage to take the debate in two stages: firstly, the debate on the title, which has now been concluded, and, secondly, to then vote on the bill part by part. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is giving a very important speech. He is outlining how he wishes the debate to proceed. It is important that members listen. He will seek leave of the Committee very shortly to be enable just that—so please, can we have silence.

I remind members that at the beginning of the Committee stage of this bill we agreed that we would take the debate in two parts: firstly, a debate on the title, which has now concluded, and the title has been passed; and, secondly, that there would be a debate on the entire remaining parts. That means that potentially we have a wide variety of issues. I have identified maybe 11 major themes in the amendments and in the bill that could all be discussed at once. It makes it very difficult for members to focus on the issues one by one. I took that problem to the Business Committee yesterday and it suggested that I attempt to seek leave at the beginning of the debate following the vote on the title, in order to suggest an order in which we took the debate. This cannot absolutely tie members and cannot preclude members raising any matter at any time if they wish to, but it is merely meant to be a guide, in particular for the Chair of the Committee at the time.

I have broadly ordered things in terms of the bill, and they go through 12 points. First is the status of prostitution; in particular, that would focus on Mr Franks’ amendments. Second are the definitions in the bill, which are quite important when it comes to Mr Goff’s amendments on, for example, small, owner-operated brothels, and the definition of operators. Third is the issue of decriminalisation of clients and of prostitutes, which broadly relates to the amendments from Dianne Yates and Marc Alexander. Fourth is the issue of advertisement in relation to businesses of prostitution or commercial sexual services, which are partly Mr Goff’s amendments and partly amendments from Mr Copeland and Sue Bradford. Fifth, there is the issue of the promotion of safer sex, which is relevant in Mr Goff’s amendment that touches on that being the specific responsibility of operators. Sixth is the application of the Immigration Act to the issue of prostitution, particularly the amendments from Lianne Dalziel concerning permits being issued under the Immigration Act.

Seventh is the issue of under-18-year-olds providing sexual services. There are amendments on that in particular from Mr Franks concerning the test of reasonableness of belief that a prostitute was aged over 18, and also the production of the proof of age by the prostitute. Eighth is the issue of controls on soliciting, which comprise a range of amendments from Mr Mapp. Ninth are the issues of controls on brothels and massage parlours, depending on the terminology used. There are amendments on that issue in particular from Wayne Mapp and Gordon Copeland, such as the retention of the Massage Parlours Act, and amendments to the Crimes Act concerning brothel keeping and the size of brothels.

Tenth, we have the certification of operators, which is the real core of Phil Goff’s amendments. Eleventh, we have the location of businesses of prostitution, and issues around the Resource Management Act. That is the other main part of Phil Goff’s amendment. Finally, we have everything else in the bill—from the schedules, to the existence of a review committee, to coercion, and so forth. Mainly those are areas where the only proposed amendments are consequential.

I propose that it is not to absolutely impose a 12-stage debate, because we will not vote on any of this until the very end of all that being discussed. I am trying to help members to work their way through what will be a series of quite complex issues. I seek leave on that basis.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 to 3 and the schedules

I understand that we are now speaking on the parts in the bill. I find it a little difficult from those lists that Tim Barnett just read out, in that perhaps I should not be speaking until the third slot, because my subject was the third item on his list. Although he sought leave for that, I am not quite sure what we are supposed to do in terms of speaking order. Nevertheless I will take the call, because I have some amendments. The amendments are that we omit clause 5, which reads “No contract for the provision of, or arranging the provision of, commercial sexual services is illegal or void on public policy or other similar grounds.”, and that we insert new clause 9CA, “Being client in act of prostitution” which reads: Every person who is a client in an act of prostitution by any person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to—(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months; or (b) a fine not exceeding $5,000.” That means that in my amendment the onus in prostitution moves from the prostitute on to the client. It means that this is an amendment in line with what they have done in Sweden.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is too much talking going on. It is discourteous to the member who is speaking. It is also an affront to the Committee. I ask all members that unless it is absolutely necessary could they please take their conversations outside in the foyer.

This is an amendment in line with what is called the Swedish legislation, and it means that the onus goes on the person who is requiring the services of a prostitute, rather than on the prostitute. It is based on the law of supply and demand. If we do away with the demand we will do away with the supply. Many people have said that they do not agree with prostitution; it is a matter of how we deal with it. New Zealand has signed up to United Nations agreements where we have said that prostitution is not a good thing, particularly in relation to women. The question is: what do we do about it? Our agreements with the United Nations say that we should be trying to get rid of prostitution.

The arguments against my amendment have been that it would drive prostitution underground. My argument is that it is underground, and will be underground. As we have heard already from Mr Catchpole, if there are 8,000 men using prostitutes, and most of them are married, they will not openly admit that they are using prostitutes, so it already is underground. I do not think the other arguments against my amendments hold water. A very good paper was presented to members from ECPAT New Zealand, the “end child prostitution” group, which has 10 arguments against this legislation. It points out that prostitution is not a desirable social phenomenon, and it is an obstacle in the ongoing development towards equality between men and women, which is a stance that I uphold. I do not think prostitution should be a legitimate occupation, which is basically what this bill makes it.

I have said before in this Chamber that as a teacher, largely of women, I do not think we should have prostitution as a legal occupation. As Harry Duynhoven has asked in this Chamber, are we really serious about this? Will we have a New Zealand Qualifications Authority qualification in prostitution? I have also looked at some of the accident compensation implications. I understand, and I have sought an opinion, that one would not get accident compensation if one happened to get pregnant as a work-related “accident” under prostitution, but one may be able to claim if one becomes infertile as a result of one’s occupation, which is a really strange thing.

There are a lot of issues around the bill that many people have not seen. I heard someone this afternoon saying that many people have not discussed the issue. I see that some women’s organisations have said nationally that they agree with this. I have spoken at many local branches of these organisations, and I found that even the heads of those organisations have not consulted or engaged in a discussion with their branches. I notice also that we have been circulated by the Federation of Graduate Women with many questions to think about before we vote.

I notice that the position of the National Council of Women is somewhat ambivalent when one reads through its newsletter on the whole issue. It is not wholeheartedly in favour of this legislation. I would point out too that ECPAT New Zealand has said, in particular, that where soliciting has been legalised—which is what we are actually doing in this bill—prostitution has increased. Where there is increased prostitution, there is increased child prostitution, despite the provisions that have been put in this bill. If we are serious about getting rid of prostitution, then I ask members to vote for my amendment.

I understand that at this point we are addressing the purpose of the bill and the status of prostitution, which is addressed in clause 3. It states: “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—”, and then it goes on to the other purposes of the bill. I want first of all to focus on the first part of that statement, that “The purpose of this Act is to decriminalise prostitution,”. We have already had a great deal of comment about what this bill is doing, and as we are completely aware now of the truth that the act of prostitution is not a criminal activity in New Zealand, this bill cannot be decriminalising prostitution. The real purpose of the bill is to decriminalise the act of pimping and brothel-keeping. That is the intent of the bill, yet it is not reflected in the purpose clause. I believe that that is outrageous and deceitful.

Much has been made of the distinction between decriminalising and legalising. Even the promoter of the bill, Tim Barnett, has said in his explanation about the need for this bill that the decriminalised model implicitly rejects the position that prostitution per se needs to be, or indeed can be, controlled, and, instead, focuses on controlling the genuine harms that can arise in association with prostitution. There has been a huge debate right through this whole process about whether this is a decriminalising or a legalising of prostitution bill. The supporters of this bill made it very clear during the select committee process that they did not want to legalise prostitution in New Zealand, because the clear evidence from Victoria in Australia is that legalisation of prostitution does not work. It does not provide the safeguards for prostitutes that they hoped for and it does not achieve any of the goals of that particular kind of legislation. But we are faced now with at least a majority of members in this Chamber deeply concerned about the decriminalised model of prostitution, so we have a number of Supplementary Order Papers on the Table, all seeking to introduce some kind of control into this laissez-faire kind of decriminalisation of prostitution.

If we are honest with ourselves, we have to know that we cannot remove all controls from prostitution and hope that everything will work out OK. We would have to be absolutely from another planet to believe that. There is no evidence anywhere in the world that if this industry is left alone without some kind of regulation or control, or police action on it, human beings take care of each other.

The speech made by Georgina Beyer earlier on made very clear, from her own experience of this industry, that it is hugely exploitative, and that if it is left to pimps and brothel-keepers to make financial gain out of prostitution, the lot of a prostitute will be very, very dim indeed. So I believe that this Parliament has, first of all, to address this question: are we really decriminalising prostitution in the framework that was originally set by the framers of this bill, or are we really, in fact, legalising prostitution? If we honestly answered that question, I think many members of this Committee would know a lot more about how to vote, because it truly is becoming a legalisation of prostitution, which overseas evidence shows us has been a disaster.

We heard that even the parties in the Dutch Parliament that supported legislative change there have since come to regret it. The president of the Police Association, after visiting Holland and looking at the situation there, has said in his submission that Holland found that it got exactly the opposite of what it expected. The changes did not improve the lives of prostitutes and they did not promote safe sex. Holland did not find the changes were conducive to public health. It had a nightmare.

In going on to talk about some of the other purposes of the bill, where we are to safeguard the human rights of sex workers and protect them from exploitation, I wish to ask the Committee how it is that prostitutes are not currently covered by our human rights legislation.

I thought it was time I came down to the Chamber. I have been so busy I have not been able to take a call on this bill up until now, but I do want to speak against it. In my job as a doctor I have worked at the sexually transmitted disease clinics and looked after people there. I understand some of the issues of this bill and the intention to try to improve things for the women who are working on the streets. I have met women for whom it has been a step up to be able to decide when they have sex, because they have been so sexually abused in their lives. People have been able to just walk into their bedroom at any time and have sex with them, so when they can actually choose somebody, and the time they have sex with them, that is an improvement in their lives. It is an incredibly sad indictment on our society that we have women living in that sort of situation.

But I cannot support this bill. I cannot support it, because I do not believe it will actually do anything for women on the streets, and women who are working as prostitutes. If we decriminalise brothel-keeping we take a group of people who are very easy to manipulate, who have often been abused, who often have alcohol and drug habits, and those women will be the victims of people who want to use them to gain money. I cannot in any way support that, because I do not believe that the bill will improve the lot of women in this country.

It amazed me when I came to Parliament to see how socially liberal it is—and New Zealand society is amazingly liberal. One travels to other countries of the world and when one comes back one is just astounded sometimes at how socially liberal this country has become. What has it gained us? We have the third-highest teenage pregnancy rate in the OECD, we have the highest youth suicide rate in the OECD, and we have one of the highest youth crime rates in the OECD. We cannot say that the social liberalisation of New Zealand society has benefited this country in any way, and I cannot stand here tonight and support Tim Barnett’s Prostitution Reform Bill, because I do not believe that it will deliver anything that will benefit this society, despite what Tim Barnett intended.

I want to look at the under-18 issue, because we have seen in the past that having an age limit does not work. Let us look at the drinking age. We reduced that to 18. People thought this country had matured enough to cope with that. Has it? I do not think so. There are 12-year-old kids going into our accident and emergency departments now who are drunk. All it has done is lower the barrier. Having an age limit of 18 will not in any way prevent younger women being forced into prostitution, and we will see more people out there on the streets and in brothels, because there are a large number of people who are prepared to exploit that situation.

Certifying the operators of businesses of prostitution will not improve the situation for New Zealand women. Already, today, they can go to the sexually transmitted disease clinics and get good information and advice on how to maintain their sexual health. I would prefer that we were spending our time, our energy, and our money on looking at alcohol and drug addiction services, and at all the things we need in mental health, to try to improve the lot of some of our young people who are in serious difficult situations because they have grown up in highly fragmented social circumstances and are paying the price for that. If we put this House’s time, money, thoughts, and energies into finding ways to improve the lot of those children—whom we know we can identify by the age of 3—and doing something about that, we might do something about the situation in New Zealand.

The stated aim of this bill is to decriminalise prostitution, but let us look at why it is necessary, because I do not think it is necessary. Prostitution in itself is not illegal in New Zealand, but a range of activities around prostitution are illegal at the moment. The aim of this bill is to decriminalise prostitution, or, if one likes, decriminalise the activities surrounding prostitution, giving them the legal status of legitimate businesses. I am talking about pimping, brothel-keeping, and, if one likes to add to those—and this bill leaves it wide open—trafficking in women and young children. It also includes and encompasses the businesses surrounding drugs. Therefore I have a major problem with this bill as it is, because, as a natural part of prostitution and the industry associated with it, there are more sinister businesses—namely, the trafficking in and exploitation of young people, particularly young women, and the proliferation of drugs and organised crime that goes hand in hand with prostitution.

Tim Barnett would have us believe that the purpose of this bill is to protect the health and the well-being of prostitutes and the public as a whole—safeguarding the human rights of the sex worker and protecting him or her from exploitation. That sounds all very well and good, but decriminalising prostitution in the manner that this bill attempts to do also legitimises those peripheral businesses. That is the major difficulty I have with this bill. The question that must be asked is whether this bill is ultimately intended to legitimise those peripheral businesses and decriminalise the trafficking in and exploitation of women and drugs, because both of those activities have very serious health problems associated with them.

Since the introduction of this bill in September 2000, my colleague Peter Brown has done a lot of research into its background. He has formulated an alternative bill, which we have in the ballot at the moment. It is based on the Swedish model and is entitled “Prostitution (Client Liability and Prostitute Care) Bill”. That bill is based on the Swedish law, and it makes the client of prostitution the one to be prosecuted. It establishes a programme to encourage, assist, and support those people who are working in prostitution to get out of the industry. It also restricts the advertising of prostitution in the media. The bill that Tim Barnett is promoting is set to legitimise the other more sinister businesses associated with prostitution. That is not good enough. No matter how many Supplementary Order Papers we have on the Table, they will not change that part of the bill. Instead, they will detract from our real knowledge and understanding of the bill, and allow us to let it slip through, legitimising those peripheral industries and businesses.

Just before I call the next speaker, I draw to the attention of honourable members that there has been an error in the voting on the question that clause 1 stand part. The result was announced as Ayes 62, Noes 55, abstentions 1. The correct result is Ayes 61, Noes 55, abstentions 1. I now order that the list be corrected under Speakers’ ruling 59/7.

We have been asked by the promoter of the bill to speak according to a list. That does not really work, because the core issue of the bill is contained in clause 10, the repeals provision of the legislation. In many respects, all other parts of the legislation are surplus, because the real goal of the promoter of this bill is to decriminalise prostitution—to remove all legal sanctions against any part of prostitution, or activities related thereto. For instance, all the provisions of the Crimes Act would be repealed under this legislation. Those provisions relate to brothel-keeping, living off the earnings of a prostitute, and the procuring of prostitutes. Those provisions exist largely because it is recognised that people who operate brothels, who procure and live off the earnings of prostitutes, are essentially in an exploitative relationship. That is why the criminal law has deep and serious sanctions against them. By and large, the types of people engaged in those kinds of activities are invariably involved in other areas of criminality. That is the reality. In essence, what the promoter of the bill would have us do is to make legal a class of people involved in a range of criminal activities. I believe that is wrong.

The second prohibition, or repeal, is the Massage Parlours Act of 1978. A massage parlour would become a normal business, just like any other business—no regulations, no controls, no vetting of any description—just as is the case with brothels under the promoter’s view. So the goal is normalcy; he is trying to deny that there is any sense of an exploitative relationship in it, and that is simply not correct.

The third repeal is section 26 of the Summary Offences Act. That is quite different, because it relates to the prostitute himself or herself. Under the current law, if one solicits in a public place, that is an offence that attracts a $200 fine. However, the law is enforced in a haphazard manner. For instance, every day of the week police officers drive past prostitutes who are soliciting and ignore them. They know that unless there is some kind of offensive aspect to it, or harassment, then it can be ignored. I have therefore proposed two changes to the existing law. The first is to change the law around soliciting—and I will probably talk about that in more detail later on. The second is to retain the law on brothel-keeping because of its exploitative nature, but then to say that if a prostitute is using his or her place, or another place that is rented, that should not be deemed to be a brothel, because that, of itself, is not an exploitative situation.

So I believe that the promoter’s fundamental thinking is flawed, notwithstanding all of the worthy objectives in the earlier clauses about safer sex and protections for prostitutes in refusing or not refusing contracts. Those clauses might appear to be quite useful, and I recognise also the strengthening of the law about prostitutes under the age of 18, but they are not the core of the legislation, and that has to be clearly understood in this debate.

I thought it might be useful at this stage to take some account of the list I presented to the House, and to talk a little about the concept of decriminalisation. I would like to refer to the bill, rather than to any imaginary activities about prostitution, which some people in the Chamber like to talk about.

The bill contains two key definitions. Firstly, prostitution means the provision of commercial sexual services, and, secondly, commercial sexual services are sexual services that involve physical participation by a person in sexual acts with, and for the gratification of, another person, and are provided for payment or other reward. So when we start to think about this legislation, we should begin with those two things—the word “prostitution” that means the provision of commercial services, and the definition of those commercial sexual services. If we are trying to design law in accordance with what is necessary and desirable, rather than starting off with what we have now, the first question we have to ask is whether commercial sexual services, as described in the bill, should be criminal activities. The fundamental point in this bill is that, no, there is nothing in those activities that should automatically mean that they are criminal. However, prostitution contains risks and threats that any sensible legislation should seek to address, so when we build up the decriminalisation model, we take the risks and harms associated with prostitution one by one, and then work out whether the current law is sufficient to address them, or whether special law is needed.

We can, for example, look at the issue of sexually transmitted diseases, which has been mentioned already this evening. Yes, there are particular harms, and there is the threat that clients may pay more for unsafe sex. Therefore it is necessary to have the particular provisions that exist in this bill, which put increased responsibilities on operators in the sex industry to ensure that safer sex information is available.

Secondly, there is clearly a particular risk or harm associated with underage sex workers—sex workers under 18 years old. The bill addresses that risk by increasing the penalties for the clients of those workers.

Thirdly, there is clearly an issue of imbalance of power, and when we have an imbalance of power in this sort of area, we end up with coercion, so this bill increases penalties for coercion.

Fourthly, as the select committee heard repeatedly, there is a problem when sex workers are unable to exit easily from the sex industry. For example, they get criminal records from being sex workers, and from carrying condoms in the street. As a result, they cannot easily get other jobs. Under this bill, prostitution–related criminal records will cease, and therefore it will be easier for those workers to exit the industry. However, we also recognised that a lot of the issues about people being trapped in the sex industry are actually about social policy, the benefit system, and a range of other things, and that is why the bill establishes a review committee. One of its terms of reference is to look at why people enter the sex industry, and how best to deter them from doing that; and, secondly, how best to encourage people to exit that industry.

The fifth area of risks and harms is about environmental risks and harms. Offensive signage, which was a complaint made by a number of submitters, is dealt with in the bill. It enables local bodies, if they so choose, to ban offensive signage related to the sex industry. Under Phil Goff’s amendment, rules respond to the concerns expressed by local bodies to enable them to consider amenity issues, as well as all the physical and environmental effects, when considering the location of brothels.

The other thing the bill does is to make sure that existing laws, which we have spent years creating through this Parliament, are there to apply to the sex industry. For example, other environmental nuisances such as parking and noise can be dealt with through the Resource Management Act and other local body regulations. Secondly, poor employment conditions in the sex industry and poor health and safety conditions can be met by exposing workers in the industry to the reality of our excellent employment relations legislation, and, secondly, to our health and safety legislation. Occupational safety and health officials explained to the committee how they would have to orient their services to understand more about the sex industry, and to intervene in order to improve health and safety for sex workers.

Harassment by street workers is a concern for some people, and we have a clear indication that the Summary Offences Act can deal with prostitutes working the streets who are harassing the general public, so there is no need for separate legislation to deal with soliciting. That is the essence of decriminalisation: we strip away the specific laws relating to that industry when they are unnecessary, but we tighten, if necessary, the laws that are specific to the real evils that exist. The decriminalisation model is contained here in the legislation.

There is one last point, which is pretty inherent in what I have just said. Lynda Scott said that there was nothing in this bill for women working as sex workers. I have already mentioned some provisions, but if she is listening, I will repeat them for her benefit. Occupational safety and health and safer sex provisions mean that health and safety gets a greater focus in the industry. The Employment Relations Act and the exposure to the tax system will make those workers feel more part of our society. The fear of police action—a fear that has become a reality in Auckland with three police operations against prostitutes in the last 5 weeks; two, by coincidence, on nights when we were either discussing this bill, or planning to discuss it—is an indication of a waste of police resources that can be better allocated elsewhere. Removing that fear from sex workers, however, is pretty fundamental to this bill. Finally, the review committee marks the first time anywhere in the world that prostitution reform has been tied to setting up a body to look at some of the long-term effects of the law change and report back to the Government and Parliament within 3 to 5 years. Those are all absolute benefits that women working as prostitutes will receive from this legislation.

I think we have reached the stage where we can talk about the advertising of commercial sexual services. I was amazed that this subject was not mentioned in the bill. I am left with two possibilities in respect of its promoters: either their agenda and desire is to see prostitution flourish—in the way, for example, that I would like to see dairy exports or the knowledge-based industries flourish—or they are simply naive and have not thought through the consequences of decriminalisation without controls on advertising. There is no place in this House for naivety.

Should this bill be passed—and I hope it will not—let us at least ban advertising. Otherwise, there will be graphic quarter-page, or even half-page, advertisements in our daily newspapers, on television, radio, the Internet, and even in the Yellow Pages. Human nature being what it is, those advertisements will push the limits and borders of pornography. I predict that advertisements on the Internet will be hard-core porn, linked to the address or telephone number of the local brothel or hooker. After all, the single goal of advertising is to stimulate demand by each and every means, and the ingenuity of admen knows no bounds.

Do we want our children and grandchildren exposed to such material? My answer is no. What is the answer of members? For me, the protection of children is a bottom-line, non-negotiable given. Children deserve the opportunity to live the beautiful, God-given period of innocence that is the essence of being a child. In my view, it is evil, in any shape or form, to sexualise children. It is wrong and we must protect them. To do otherwise would be unconscionable.

My amendment is based on the smoke-free legislation. If this House of Parliament can pass law to ban the advertising of tobacco, then we certainly need it for prostitution. On any kind of moral scale, it is on a completely different level and is, to say the least, way down the scale on any decent measuring of morality. If my amendment does not go through, I would like to ask those members of this House who have voted in favour of the bill to date to think about changing their opinion. As I have said, if we do not put some restraints on advertising material in this bill, then we would be foolish in the extreme, and be risking that beautiful innocence that our children and grandchildren have a right to enjoy.

I want to address briefly the issue touched on by the previous speaker, and that is advertising. It is surprising that the bill does not cover that issue. That probably is a bit of an oversight, and it is one that Parliament would be wise to rectify in the course of the Committee stage tonight. The truth of the matter is that unless there are some prohibitions on advertising, once prostitution is decriminalised the newspapers, television, and radio will, I assume, be free to advertise sex.

Libertarians might ask why prostitutes should not be able to advertise their services. The issue we need to consider here is our children. Do we want to see advertisements such as the large advertisements in the Yellow Pages? Do we want to see advertisements like that in the newspapers, maybe on page 3 or page 2, and maybe on television and in places where our children will almost inevitably encounter them? I have no problem if advertisements are tucked away perhaps in text only in the Yellow Pages, or indeed, in the classified section of the newspapers. However, I worry that if we do not have some prohibition in this bill, we will end up with the possibility of those sorts of advertisements appearing right through our newspapers, and on television and radio.

I have great sympathy with the amendment Gordon Copeland has put forward, calling for a complete prohibition on advertising. However, many people have pointed out that if there was a complete prohibition on all advertising of prostitution, we might very well end up inadvertently, and unintentionally, simply encouraging prostitutes to walk the streets as their only means of trying to solicit business. I do not think that any of us would want that to happen as an unintended consequence of what seems like a very sensible amendment.

So I propose an amendment to Gordon Copeland’s amendment that would state that there would be a prohibition on advertising, except for the text-only publication of business details in business and telephone directories and advertising in the classified sections of newspapers and magazines. In other words, prostitutes could readily advertise in the classified section of any newspaper or magazine, but the advertisements would be quietly tucked away, and hopefully they would not be exposed to all our children who, I imagine, do not spend their days flicking through the classified sections of newspapers and magazines. Prostitutes would also be able to advertise in the Yellow Pages, but they would not be able to advertise anywhere else on television, radio, etc.

My colleague Sue Bradford has proposed a slight variation on my amendment. She has proposed that we set up—and she will introduce the amendment herself, but she is focusing on developing—a code of conduct around the commercial advertising of sex. My problem with that is that I have absolutely no faith in codes of conduct. I have spent many years looking at codes of conduct in respect of violence and all sorts of things. There are codes of conduct that state there should be no gratuitous violence on television, yet our television screens are filled with gratuitous violence. That code is absolutely meaningless because there is no enforcement and no monitoring. In my view, while Sue Bradford’s amendment is very well intentioned, just simply developing a code would not be sufficient. While codes might make us all feel good and virtuous they do not seem to have any effect, and we can see that in every single code of advertising that we have in every aspect, whether it be food labelling, violence, or whatever else.

So I suggest my simple amendment to Gordon Copeland’s amendment, which states we should have a prohibition on the advertising of prostitution except for allowing the publication of details in telephone and business directories and advertising in the classified section of newspapers.

I would like to draw attention to three issues pertaining to the bill. Firstly, with regard to its purpose, the bill states that that is to decriminalise prostitution and create a framework that is conducive to public health. I have great concern that because this is a member’s bill it does not have the appropriate resourcing and Government support services around it to ensure that that will, indeed, happen.

If one does go to the experience of the Swedes in the 1970s when they carried out decriminalisation, one finds that at the same time that that was implemented enormous effort was also put into a social and economic reform programme. I note that the commentary on the bill states: “Laws were tightened around procurement to discourage exploitation, and penalties introduced for procuring women less than 20 years old. Outreach programmes were established to reduce the incidence of prostitution by social means, with government support for accommodation, money, emotional support, and alternative employment. The measures resulted in a 40 percent reduction in prostitution in the 1980s.” That certainly sounds like an impressive reduction, but with this bill we do not have all the extra Government resourcing that should be implicit with it being passed.

One of the hugely worrying things is the situation relating to street soliciting, and just decriminalising that. If ever there is a group of prostitutes who are vulnerable, it is those ones, and it is very unlikely that this bill will help them. I cannot see anything in it that will do so. Those prostitutes are the very ones who are unable to get a job in a massage parlour or with an escort agency, and it certainly does require huge support mechanisms with real resourcing to enable them to be constructively employed in other ways. I think that is one of the major gaps behind this bill. Prostitutes who work in massage parlours or escort agencies are not nearly as vulnerable as those who are down on Hunters Corner or Karangahape Road. They are often young men and women who have come from extremely dysfunctional backgrounds, who have drug and alcohol problems, and who need urgent attention to address those issues. I feel that introducing this bill without the extra resources that occurred with the Swedish model in the 1970s will create extra difficulties for those young people.

The second area that I want to talk about is what has actually happened with the public health measures in New Zealand over the last 10 to 15 years. I would like to pay tribute to the Prostitutes Collective, the AIDS Foundation, and the ministry in terms of the efforts they have made to ensure that the safe-sex message was inculcated in New Zealand. Indeed, the evidence shows that we have very low morbidity in terms of sexually transmitted diseases at this stage. I do not believe that those efforts will be diminished by decriminalising prostitution, at all. In fact, in many respects, the young people who are working on the streets are only likely to be marginalised.

Lastly, I want to focus on the amendment that I have proposed regarding the review of the operation of this legislation and related matters. Again, I must compliment Tim Barnett on ensuring that there will be a review of this legislation. Clearly, if one thing is needed with fairly adventurous legislation, it is to ensure that it is monitored carefully—qualitatively—so that realistic interventions can be made in response to deficits in it. I think so much is unknown about the decriminalisation model that a review of the operation of the legislation is all-important. I agree with that entirely, but I am concerned about the make-up of the review committee on this legislation. I think that 12 people are far too many. I am sure that that will diminish the committee’s ability to focus on the real issues, but that is only a minor point.

However, because of the significance and the unknown factors relating to this bill, I have added an amendment to Part 1, to insert after clause 2 the following new clause 2A: “This Act expires 5 years after the day in which it receives the royal assent, unless a majority of the House of Representatives resolves otherwise.”

I believe that if this legislation is passed, because it is so significant and has so many unknown consequences it would be only right and proper—and I am not in favour of this bill—for there to be a serious analysis of where it stands in 5 years’ time. There should be an endorsement by a majority of Parliament for it to continue. Obviously, that occasion would allow for appropriate amendments to take place. I think that because the social consequences of this bill, and the experience of the decriminalisation models overseas, are so unknown and so unsure, that would at least provide a very salutary mechanism to ensure that we did not continue with inappropriate legislation. If anything, it could increase the quality of the legislation at that time.

I mentioned earlier that the bill we have in the ballot for members’ bills is based on the Swedish model, and I would just like to expand on that. The Swedish Government views prostitution as undesirable, and has identified as a priority assisting prostitutes to leave the industry. Prostitutes have extensive support structures, including specific counselling services and retraining programmes. When the Swedish Government introduced the law in 1999 to criminalise the clients of prostitutes, there was a dramatic reduction in the number of women working on the streets.

Tim Barnett is being naive when he believes that decriminalising prostitution will not result in an increase in the number of people who enter the industry. Decriminalising prostitution and putting it on a similar footing to other occupations and businesses simply legitimises the entire industry and sends the wrong message out to the young and vulnerable, who will see prostitution as a genuine career choice. That would be a tragedy. The enormity of the sex trade throughout the world is overwhelming. I quote from Donna Hughes, the education and research coordinator for the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women: “The only way to proceed is to acknowledge the violence and exploitation for what it is and create remedies accordingly. Decriminalisation will only benefit traffickers and pimps, and compromise individual women’s rights.”

Tim Barnett states: “The experience of decriminalisation in New South Wales has been that the illegal sector has not developed.” I have to compare that with a “Monty Pythonism”: the way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of offences. If prostitution is decriminalised, of course there will not be an illegal sector—it is no longer illegal! Tim Barnett’s belief is that the illegal sector will not develop, but how can it? It can no longer exist because it is no longer illegal.

When the laws on drugs were liberalised in the Netherlands a huge industry developed, and the Netherlands has now largely reversed those laws. The Netherlands now has grave doubts about the decriminalisation of prostitution. The decriminalising of prostitution will only leave an industry that will exploit women, because it will no longer be illegal to do so. This bill would decriminalise the whole activity of trafficking, and prostitution is a major industry that leads to trafficking in, particularly, the young and the vulnerable. This bill leaves it wide open for that industry to expand and develop as a result of that. This bill is fatally flawed, and I will be voting against all parts of it.

I would like to make a few points at this stage of the debate. Firstly, in relation to the question of advertising, which Mr Copeland and my colleague Sue Kedgley have already talked about, I say it has become apparent following the process of considering the bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee that we should have paid more attention to that area. I have an amendment on the Table tonight that puts up an alternative to Mr Copeland’s amendment, because if this bill does pass—and I certainly hope it does—it is important that we do something about the advertising situation. I certainly do not want to see the day come when there is full colour television advertising in prime time of brothels and so on.

My amendment seeks, firstly, to ban altogether the broadcasting of advertisements for commercial sexual services on radio and television, and, secondly, that the Minister of Justice, within 6 months, develops a code of practice for the advertising and print media regarding the advertising of commercial sexual services. That code would take into account things like a high standard of social responsibility—that such advertising should not target children and young people, that it should not in any way glamorise prostitution, and that it should not demean women or men. Of course, other factors should be taken into account as well. I believe that that amendment provides a compromise between what Mr Copeland wants, which is a complete ban, and what the bill does not provide for at the moment, and that is any indicative road forward on that issue, at all.

If we go Mr Copeland’s way there will be very real problems and there will be negative outcomes that he, perhaps, has not considered. For instance, if prostitutes cannot advertise their services at all, I believe we will see a proliferation of street soliciting and pimping, and it will also put all the power into the hands of the large operators who can afford to put up billboards and massive signage outside their premises.

The second area that I would like to address relates to the purpose of the bill and discussion around whether this bill sanctions or endorses prostitution. I would like members to note that during the select committee process we looked at that issue a lot. I do not think anyone on the committee wanted this bill in any way to convey a sense that somehow we thought this occupation would become normalised and sanctioned within the school system, the career guidance services, and so on. We amended the purpose clause to state that the bill does not endorse or morally sanction prostitution. That has been a critical clause to me. During the 1980s an incident occurred at the unemployed workers centre where I worked, when a young woman was asked by the then Department of Social Welfare to take up a job in a massage parlour. That was one of the most disgusting things I had heard of.

I would not like to see the day come when the Department of Work and Income, the Accident Compensation Corporation, vocational guidance services, or any such bodies would ever think that sending people to work in the sex industry is a job, just like any other job. It should never be that. That is why I have supported that change to the purpose clause: to make it very clear that in putting this bill together, we do not endorse or sanction prostitution. We were also careful to refer to that in the commentary on the bill, and to state that members of the select committee that worked so long and so hard on this bill were very clear they did not ever want to see careers advisers in schools advising young people that prostitution is an occupation that they should head for, nor that people within the structures of the welfare or accident compensation systems, similarly, should ever be required or even advised to take up such work as an occupation.

Thirdly, on a connected issue, we have the question of 16 and 17-year-olds in the sex industry. Although this bill aligns itself with the Crimes Act amendments that we passed a couple of years ago, and brings New Zealand into line with international conventions on children and young people under 18—that is, it will not be legal for people to have sex with prostitutes under the age of 18—I do think we have a real problem around 16 and 17-year-olds in this country. That has been an issue for a long time—since 1990, when the then Labour Government removed the unemployment benefit, and the sickness benefit was later removed as well, from 16 and 17-year-olds. At that time in Auckland there was an upsurge in prostitution—particularly among young women, but also young men—in that age group, because they suddenly had no means of support. What does the Government expect, when young people of that age have no means of support?

That is an ongoing issue, as well as a historical one. Just a few weeks ago we had a case of a young girl in Auckland, aged 17, who was trying to exit the sex industry—something one would think that a Government department would think was a good idea. The young woman attempted for weeks and weeks, with the aid of a community organisation, to get an independent youth benefit from the Department of Work and Income, but was refused over and over again. I could not understand that such primitive attitudes still exist. That young person who had been in the sex industry was trying to get out of it, and she wanted to look for training and/or work—something I think we would all agree is a good thing—but it was only after mighty efforts on the part of a number of people that she gained any support, at all.

I hope that the Government will look more closely at that, because this bill does not stand alone. It sits in an environment where, in terms of the economy, we still have hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and in which young people, who are the people most likely to take up careers in sex work, are still the most economically disadvantaged people. Those factors must be taken into account, and this Government does need to look at changing the welfare system so that people in that 16 and 17-year-old age group who are without work or support from their families can have easier access to assistance from the State.

To turn to the question of criminalisation itself, among the many reasons that I strongly support decriminalisation is something that has not been talked about a lot in the course of the debate on this bill, and that is the question of people with disabilities in relation to the sex industry. For many, many years I have been aware of the problems faced by the people who care for people with major disabilities, in that their carers often know that the only way some of those people will ever have access to sex, or even to any kind of sensual or personal contact, is through working with a sex surrogate or a sex worker. Some of those disability providers have ended up in a very invidious and ambiguous situation of acting, basically, as a procurer to obtain sex for their clients. Those people have talked to me in the past and they are very, very unhappy about being in that position.

Yet it is a very real issue. I do not think many people in this House can understand what it is like for someone who perhaps faces life as a quadriplegic, for someone with a severe brain injury, for a severely intellectually handicapped person, and for many others who are in a situation where they may never have sex in their whole life, or may never have sex again. For those people, obtaining sexual services is a very fundamental human need. I believe that one of the real reasons that we must pass this bill is on disability issues alone. Those people should be able to access sexual services as a health service, and the people who provide care for them should be able to do that in as sane, as sensible, and as healthy a way as possible, without having to be contaminated by engagement with a situation that is illegal or semi-legal, as is the case at the moment.

Finally, the basic question has been raised already about whether we do need decriminalisation, because theoretically so few sex workers are criminalised at the moment. Well, as some people have already mentioned, last month in Auckland there were three separate sweeps on Auckland sex workers. Over 30 people were arrested, and one of them was a 39-year-old woman who had not been arrested for prostitution before in her life. My heart broke when I thought of the impact that arrest would have on that woman and on the rest of her life. There is a lot of nice talk about people exiting the sex industry, but once one has a conviction for soliciting or a similar offence on one’s record, that is it. It becomes very, very difficult to ever remake one’s life after something like that. There is the impact internally of that kind of arrest and court proceedings, and possibly other outcomes in terms of penalties, as well as the whole social stigma that goes with it and the effect on potential job opportunities. That is devastating for people. I hope that tonight, or very soon, we will see the day come in this country when women like that woman will no longer face that risk for having consenting sex with another adult.

Speaking to clause 3, and following the last speaker, I say that earlier this evening I looked up the issue of occupation. I looked carefully at clause 3, and the sanctimonious language used. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to decriminalise prostitution”. That is quite clear. We can disregard the stuff about: “(while not endorsing or morally sanctioning …)”. It states that it creates a framework that safeguards the worker, protects the worker, has care for the welfare and occupational health and safety of the worker, and so on. Is that not an occupation? To follow the last speaker, I say that one of the issues that would greatly concern me, and anyone who has been in education, is that we have a shift here, and we have already heard a possible example of a massage parlour worker who was placed in the position of working in the industry, at the suggestion of Work and Income New Zealand—of making sex-work another occupation.

For anyone who has been in the teaching profession, I say again that what we have here is a not-too-subtle shift to a life-choice for career and guidance—believe you me, that is what it means. That is the first thing.

Secondly, I have heard some learned and lengthy discussion about certain clauses, but I want to bring an example to the Committee of something that was my lot just a fortnight ago. Unlike other members of this House, members of the Local Government and Environment Committee were meeting in Auckland. I stayed at the Sheraton hotel on the Sunday evening. I was awakened in the morning at half-past 2 by a commotion outside. I went to the window, to see a very demonstrative sex worker trying to get her fee out of the driver of a car she was in. Three other workers then appeared out of the bushes, just along from City Road, to give some help to that worker.

We have heard in this Chamber quite clear comments about health and safety requirements, signage, protections, and prohibitions, but, as has already been mentioned by the honourable member Dr Hutchison, not one of those issues affects, or will change, that worker’s role at all. The workers on Karangahape Road, Hunter’s Corner, and City Road will not be influenced one whit, or have a changed lifestyle in any way, because of any of the issues that are supposedly here for their protection.

They do not know about the issue as to what a brothel is. They are not aware what the business of prostitution may mean. They are independently and privately soliciting on the street, which, by the way, is their right at the present time.

I want to come back to the issue. Despite all the fine language we have heard around this Chamber tonight and on other nights, the purpose clause very clearly states that this occupation is one that is a work-style. On behalf of New Zealand First, I say again that we utterly reject that contention.

I will speak specifically to the amendments I have proposed on Supplementary Order Paper 68. I have already dealt with the issue of brothels, so the amendments I will speak to at this point relate to the issue of soliciting. As I have indicated, under section 26 of the Summary Offences Act, soliciting is an offence, punishable by a fine of $200, but it is not actually enforced. Police officers in their vehicles drive past Fort Street and Karangahape Road, and ignore prostitutes who are soliciting. So what this amendment will essentially do is put into law current police practice.

It does two things. On the one hand, it gives councils the power to regulate where soliciting would take place. It specifically says “except those areas where soliciting customarily takes place.” For instance, one would expect that the Auckland City Council would permit soliciting in Fort Street and Karangahape Road, because that is where it customarily takes place. One would expect the Manukau City Council to permit it to take place in Hunter’s Corner in Papatoetoe. Of course, in North Shore City there would be no places where soliciting would take place, because there is no soliciting in the North Shore, which might say something about the nature of the society that I represent. I will go one step further, and also say that the soliciting that did take place would then be subject to further restrictions. It would be in a defined area, in which it customarily takes place now—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Customary rights.

Customary rights. In addition, if it is causing a nuisance, or constitutes harassment, then that would be an offence, also, under the Summary Offences Act, which would be subject to a fine of $2,000. It also criminalises the clients—and that is an important point. If the clients themselves are harassing or causing a nuisance—and that does happen; we have seen evidence of that—then they would also be committing an offence. In that sense, the law is intended to be even-handed. The worst aspect of the current law is that it is not even-handed: the prostitutes can be convicted of soliciting—if the law is enforced, and that does not happen very often—but the clients get off scot-free.

I know there is a school of thought, typified by Dianne Yates and Marc Alexander in particular, that colloquially refers to the Swedish model; needless to say, I would prefer the phrase the “Swedish law”. That would make soliciting by the client a criminal offence. I have polled the electorate of North Shore by a telephone poll. It was scientifically conducted by a random survey from the electoral roll, and I can tell members that, of the 150-odd respondents, only about 20 percent favoured the Swedish approach to legislation. So I do not believe that if this Parliament went as far as that we would have community consent for what we were doing. For that reason, I will be voting against the Swedish approach to legislation.

I suggest that the amendments I have put up, which give local authorities power to pass by-laws and to then establish some new offences around harassment and the committing of a nuisance in public places, would provide the appropriate controls.

It has been pointed out to me by Dr Paul Hutchison that soliciting is undertaken by people who are totally marginalised, and that it ought to be discouraged by legislation. But, in my view, that is the reason we should not be compounding the marginalisation by the existing offences. I ask the Committee to support those proposals, because I think they are a constructive way of advancing New Zealand’s law.

I will commence some discussion on aspects of advertising and the promotion of safer sex. First of all, I will refer to comments made by Sue Bradford at the end of her speech, when she said she was broken-hearted about a 39-year old woman who would be arrested on the street for prostitution; in actual fact, that woman would be arrested for soliciting. My heart would break for the fact that a 39-year old woman is on the street having to solicit and find a living in that kind of environment. If that is the kind of society we want to have in New Zealand, then this bill is the answer for those who want to promote that. I believe we should be doing all we can to help a 39-year old woman get off the street. She should not have to dehumanise herself through that kind of activity.

Sue Bradford talked about the advertising of commercial sexual services, and she said that it has just become apparent to her that this bill could lead to a proliferation of some pretty awful things. Although I do not wish to malign the motives of Sue Bradford in any way—because I actually believe she is trying to do the best thing for prostitutes—what she says reveals a very, very important thing about the process we are going through. Two select committees have already spent an incredible amount of time considering and deliberating on this bill, and most of the amendments that are now on the Table in this Committee have been discussed by those select committees as ways and means of mitigating the effects of this legislation going through.

The fact that at this late stage the select committee has to acknowledge—or at least one member of the select committee has to acknowledge—that we did not think about the possibilities, simply reveals that that is the nature of the difficulty of the task ahead of us. I believe that we will continue to discover things in this legislation that we did not think about—the ramifications upon society—if we seek to go forward.

💬 Sue Bradford: There’s a review process.

The review process may be just a little bit too late. It may be shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. If we look at what has happened overseas, once this industry is given an inch it takes a mile and it is very difficult to pull it back. In particular if our police are under-resourced it will be more difficult to try to shut the gate after the horse has bolted.

The Committee has been discussing safe sex, and I want to comment on the remarks that Tim Barnett made earlier about safe sex. Safe sex is one of the important purposes of this bill. The bill has the stated aims of safeguarding the human rights of sex workers, protecting them from exploitation, promoting the welfare and occupational safety and health of sex workers, and being conducive to public health.

I will mention public health in a moment, because we need to remember the public at large. This is not meant to be about just the sexual health of sex workers. As they interact frequently with other members of the public, the broader public health issues must be considered, as well. Tim Barnett mentioned before, when he was giving an explanation about why this bill is so necessary, that a prostitute may, for the payment of additional money, be tempted to conduct unsafe sex. She may be tempted to disregard the use of a condom and engage in unsafe sex. I have looked in the bill to see how on earth that could be prevented and I cannot see anywhere where that could be prevented. How on earth will we monitor—

💬 Stephen Franks: There’s nothing.

There is nothing. The bill requires a brothel-keeper to take all reasonable steps, but he or she is not going to be present in the room when the activity is taking place. If a prostitute decides, for additional money, that she will take the risk of unsafe sex, she will do so. We will not hire an army of health workers to run around the country and peep through windows—

💬 Stephen Franks: OSH will be there.

I think that is a pretty vain hope, somehow. Then the Occupational Safety and Health Service people will be arrested for peeping through the window to try to keep an eye on what is going on. It is just not possible to promote safe sex.

I refer to something that the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective said in its statements that I think is very revealing. It stated: “Those who assume that because money changes hands for sex so must sexually transmittable infections, money does not transmit sexually transmittable infections, unsafe sex does. In New Zealand sex workers have clearly not contributed to the spread of HIV.”

That is a statement from the Prostitutes Collective. They say: “In fact, sex workers have introduced thousands of men to the mechanics of using condoms safely.” So if it can be done without a law change, what on earth are we discussing here? In fact the Prostitutes Collective goes on to state: “Sex workers are motivated to look after their sexual health. A study of 303 Christchurch sex workers published recently found that the vast majority of sex workers from all sectors of the sex industry have regular sexual health checkups and practise safe sex.”

We could not get anything more reliable than that. That is a statement from the Prostitutes Collective. Yet this bill is supposed to be promoting safe sex within the prostitution industry. By its own statement it already exists, and there is nothing that I can see in this bill that would take them any further. Ultimately the decision about safe-sex practices is left with the prostitute. Our health services, our sexually transmitted disease clinics, and our public hospitals are all there to serve the needs of all New Zealanders. I have spoken with those who work in hospital health clinics and sexually transmitted disease clinics, and they regularly see prostitutes. They make no bones about giving them the full range of services that are available. Therefore, it is entirely up to the individual to make the decision as to whether he or she attends.

The idea that having a poster promoting safe sex on the wall of a brothel will have an influence on either the client or the prostitute is absolutely absurd. They already know about HIV and the kinds of sexually transmitted diseases that there are, and it is upon them to take care of that issue.

Let me talk about condom use. Much has been said about the fact that prostitutes have to conceal condoms and cannot use them, and that if condoms are in the room where prostitution is taking place, the police will use them for prosecution. I have here a search warrant for the Summary Proceedings Act, which was also included in the Prostitutes Collective submission. It states that the following things: namely, business records, documents, computer equipment, bank account documentation, money, and sex paraphernalia in the forms of condoms and sex tools related to the offence of brothel keeping, can be taken as evidence for conviction. The reason the police may take those things has nothing to do with the act of prostitution. It has to do with the act of brothel-keeping and pimping. The pimp or the brothel-keeper, not the prostitute, will be prosecuted with that evidence. Of course, in the case of massage parlours, they are not meant to be operating fully fledged brothels. They are supposed to be operating massage parlours where independent workers are able to make their own decisions within the confines of the rooms of that massage parlour.

I make one final comment about the issue of public health, because this bill is supposed to promote not just the individual health of the prostitute, but also public health. I talked earlier about the fact that, by prostitutes’ own accounts, 60 to 70 percent of their clients are married men. No matter how many precautions a prostitute takes in order to conduct herself safely and to have regular check-ups, she can only be as sexually safe as her last client. That is the reality of the business she is involved in. Her next client can have no satisfaction that she will not pass on a disease. The bill makes it very clear that prostitutes cannot use that certificate to say they are safe. Therefore, this bill is not promoting public health at all. It is actually opening the door to the potential for the further spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

We already have a problem in this country. HIV may be monitored very well, but the instances of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases are skyrocketing in some places. This bill will not help in that area.

💬 John Carter: Partially through prostitution.

It is partially through prostitution, as the member says, and it is partially through the rampant sexual involvement of our young people without adequate knowledge or restraint, but the point is that this bill is not promoting public health, because there is an element of risk inherent within the industry itself and the product it is trying to sell.

I have not yet spoken on this bill, not because I do not have an opinion, or feel that these issues are important, but because I have not had the opportunity. I am very pleased I have been chosen out of those members who have risen to seek the call. I strongly support this legislation. Like most members, I have received many letters on the subject. I have endeavoured to reply to every one of them, and not just with a sentence or a single paragraph. I hope I have sent out a reasoned response based on a lot of thought about the issue.

For many years before becoming a politician, I was a teacher, so the welfare of young people is very important to me. It was my professional background, and it is something that I am very concerned about. While I would be very unhappy to have seen any of my former pupils become sex workers, no doubt some of them have, because that is, unfortunately, a reality of society. It seems always to have been an aspect of human life. Prostitution is often referred to as the “oldest profession”, and I am sure there is a lot of truth in that saying. It is a reality that is found in all communities and all countries.

How are we to deal with that reality? Do we hide our heads in the sand? Do we ignore it? Do we just hope that, somehow, by ignoring it, it will go away? It will never go away. It has always been with us. It is a reality. If we accept it as a reality, how do we best treat it?

We have a dilemma. I am sure no one in this Chamber would want to send out a positive message that being a sex worker is both an admirable and a welcome profession. Many people have spoken eloquently in this Chamber about how they would not want their children to be prostitutes. I fully accept and understand that position. I imagine that every person in this Parliament accepts that position.

However, coming back to my earlier point, the reality is that some people do become sex workers. How do we make that choice? How do we make that reality better for those people? How do we make it safer for those people? How do we make it safer for the community? How do we keep crime out of it? How do we make it healthier, and stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are fatal—for instance, HIV/AIDS, which the previous speaker, Mr Baldock, spoke about? How do we deal with those issues?

This bill from my colleague and friend Mr Barnett is a step in that direction. It offers greater protection for young people. It seeks to make it easier for the police, the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Service, and the Department of Social Welfare to deal with the problem of young people getting into the sex industry. It increases the powers to stop that happening. It will not stop it completely, of course, but it improves it.

It also improves the ability of health professionals to monitor the health and well-being of sex workers. It allows local authorities to regulate and make safer the practices of people involved in the sex industry. Those are admirable, important, and positive things to do.

I know that many members of this Committee are concerned that this bill sends out a message that it is OK to be a sex worker or good to be a sex worker. I fully accept the view of the member for Christchurch Central that that is not the message he is wanting to send. The mission of the member who is promoting this bill is to try to protect young people in a better and more effective way. He is trying to make in particular the sexual health of sex workers better, to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease, and to keep young people out of this profession. By bringing this industry out of the twilight, he is also trying and attempting in a more successful way to deal with the issue of organised crime in the sex industry. The select committee that dealt with this issue, and people in this Parliament who have experience—in fact we have a member who was a sex worker—have spoken about the problems of organised crime and of gangs being involved in the sex industry. This legislation will help to address that question, which is very important. For all these reasons I support the bill.

We are about 2 minutes away from the time when we would normally rise. Rather than your interrupting a member’s speech, and giving him or her only 2 minutes, I wonder whether the Committee might be inclined to close for the night, 2 minutes early, and resume the debate on the next members’ day in a fortnight’s time when a member can then get full time. Indeed, I intend to give notice at that stage to seek leave of the Committee to allow members to have two or three calls on end, if they so wish, so that they can give a full contribution. We have been doing that tonight, and I think it is a good practice. But I think it would be useful if a member wanted to have more than one call he or she could do so, so his or her speech is not interrupted, and I intend to seek leave for that. But in the meantime, with now 1 minute to go, seeing that I have taken up 1 minute, I seek leave for us to rise 1 minute early, and it seems an appropriate time for you now to leave the Chair, and I seek leave for you so to do.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.