Prostitution Reform Bill

A number of members may not have been advised of some of the discussion that took place in the Business Committee. I wonder whether members would bear with me so I can advise them of its thoughts on how the Committee on this bill might progress tonight. First, the Business Committee was hopeful that we might get to the stage of starting to vote tonight, in which case the Committee needs to understand that, provided there is no closure motion, we can pause at 9.55 p.m. and continue the voting on the next members’ day. So nobody needs to fear that we will be here until midnight, if we commence the voting close to 10 p.m. That is the first point.

The second point is that some discussion took place, and the member in charge of the bill, with the assistance of the Clerks and one or two members, such as Stephen Franks, has put around a schedule of the voting procedure. The Business Committee recommended that be done. That recommendation has been followed, its purpose being to get some sequence in the voting; otherwise we would be putting the question on all the Supplementary Order Papers, then going back and voting on the bill, and that did not make any sense. So there is still an opportunity for members who are interested to comment on it, if they want to, between now and when we vote. I have had a glance through the sequence and it is common sense. It will follow an order, and some groupings have been done.

Finally, there was a suggestion that part of the problem we are having with the debate, given that we have 5-minute speaking slots, is that after members have spoken for 5 minutes, someone else takes the call, and then a member who has previously spoken and who does not feel that he or she has made a big enough contribution, wants to make a further call and seeks another 5 minutes. So progress is not being made, and it was suggested that it might be useful if members were able to take more than one 5-minute call so they could make their contribution without feeling bound to get up and make another speech. It was suggested that that might also facilitate the progress of the bill. I indicated last time that, even though it would be in 5-minute slots and members would have to call the Chair again to get the call—and, of course, it is in the hands of the Chair as to whether they do—it may well be to the advantage of the Committee to let members who are speaking add on to their 5 minutes so they do not have to repeat what they said previously because of getting on to a new Part.

I therefore seek the leave of the Committee to give itself the authority that, if a member on his or her feet seeks another 5-minute call at the end of his or her 5-minute speech, then the Chair has the right to allow that member to have a further 5 minutes—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): A second call?

A second call, and, if necessary, a third. I do not think the Committee would want to go much beyond that, quite honestly. I am seeking that, at the discretion of the Chair, a member can have one 5-minute call followed immediately by a second, which would be a 10-minute contribution, and then, if the member felt it necessary, and the Chair decided, there could be a third call added on to that speaking slot. But the maximum time should be no more than 15 minutes. I seek leave for that to happen.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Before the member seeks leave for that, I wish to advise the Committee from the Chair that some members have already had three calls.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification, because this is a contentious bill, and I just want to be assured that if members take only 5-minute calls and sit down at the bell, they will not lose their second, third, or fourth calls. Some of my members want to refute what is being said here from time to time.

There is no intention to limit the right that anybody already has. The aim is to try to maximise. If a member wanted to have a 5-minute call and then seek another call later, that is, of course, in the Standing Orders, and that is not to be affected in any way.

💬 Peter Brown: Are there four calls?

At the moment I think we are still limited to the four 5-minute calls, but, from memory, we took the limit off the number of calls, did we not?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I think that was right. No, the limit did not come off. Just to help the situation in the Committee, could I suggest that the right course of action might be that some honourable member seek the leave of the Committee to have more than four calls. Is that what the member is saying?

That is what I am saying. Are you saying to have more than four calls, as well?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am just thinking of the concerns being expressed by New Zealand First and trying to accommodate the Committee.

No, can we just do the first thing first?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The reason I do that is that some members have already had three calls, so it means they will at least get one more call.

Yes, but they can have four calls now, can they not, as of right?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If the leave of the Committee is given.

No, they can, as of right under the Standing Orders, have up to four calls.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, they can have up to four calls, but some of them have already had three.

Yes, I know. I do not know that the Committee is that keen to give anyone more than four 5-minute calls. A 20-minute contribution on a bill like this is probably sufficient. We could seek leave, but I suspect it might be turned down. So could we just put the leave that I have asked for first, which will not interfere with the concern Mr Brown has expressed? That is not a problem; so if we could have multiple calls, up to three calls—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I suggest then that we might like to seek leave to have more than one call in a row?

That is what I am seeking leave for, yes.

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

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. What is the limit per member? Is it four calls?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Under the Standing Orders the limit is four calls per member.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. It was my understanding that when we were last in Committee we removed the limit on the number of calls in this debate.

I have a feeling that that is so. Perhaps we could continue on, and we could come back to this after taking some advice.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We will continue on, and we will check that out.

I want to speak today about the women working as prostitutes in New Zealand. Clause 3 outlines its purpose as safeguarding the human rights of prostitutes and protecting them from exploitation, whilst promoting their welfare and occupational health and safety. It is not that I wish anything less than that for prostitutes; rather, my problem is that I want much more than that for them. When I speak of women prostitutes, I thinking not just of those who are already employed, and represented, say, by the Prostitutes Collective, but also of the young women who will, should this bill become law, be enticed by financial inducements into becoming prostitutes in the future. Also I think it would be helpful if we were to focus on these women as individuals, bearing in mind that, as Nanaia Mahuta has pointed out to us, many of them, perhaps 50 percent, will be our beloved Māori women.

Women are created in the image and likeness of God. They are endowed with the dignity, genius, and feminine mystique that rightly belong to women. They are rational and free beings, called, together with men, to live in a communion of love. They are coequal with, but complementary to, men. In marriage they, along with men, are called into a unity of the two so that, side by side, and together, they exist mutually one for the other. It is, in fact, through a sincere gift of themselves to that other special one that both men and women frequently move towards their self-realisation and their self-discovery. Sadly, however, the human race has for thousands of years battled against the tendency of men to dominate women. This domination, which is also negative for men, has particularly severe and unfavourable ramifications for women.

Emancipation for both men and women finally means freedom from all forms of domination, exploitation, and violence. That is why in Sweden prostitution is officially recognised as a form of male sexual violence against women. In that nation, it has been concluded that prostitution is a serious problem, harmful not only to the women and men involved in the activity but also to society at large. I am prepared to predict here tonight in the New Zealand Parliament—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I heard a cellphone ring. There is a Speaker’s ruling that cellphones are not permitted in the Chamber, when they are turned on. The member will stand and apologise.

💬 John Carter: I apologise. It was in my pocket. It was turned off, but it must have bumped on. It is now turned off again.

I am prepared to predict here tonight in the New Zealand Parliament that Sweden is on the right side of history in this matter. The Swedish example seems likely to be followed by Finland, Norway, France, and even the Netherlands, which is presently known as the sex capital of Europe. By contrast, the bill we have before us tonight can in no sense be regarded as forward-looking; rather, it attempts to wind back the clock to a past, dark, Victorian-style age in which society, in general, was prepared to permit and approve the sexual domination of women by men.

There is nothing in this bill that can be described as progressive or liberal. Indeed, when we focus on the reality of the exploitation and domination that is involved in brothel-keeping, procuring, and pimping it can not even be described as libertarian, but simply as libertine. Therefore, the essential question before Parliament tonight is whether we want to move New Zealand forward into a new age of healthy male-female relationships, or whether we want to take it back into the dark ages of male domination and sexual exploitation. In this regard, I must in particular appeal to all the women in this Parliament, but I also appeal to the men. I ask each person to examine his or her own conscience, regardless of whether that person is or is not a member of the executive, or, like myself, simply a first-term novice MP.

I am, as a male, daring to raise these issues in the Chamber tonight, because I have received moving submissions along these lines from the following organisations: the Women’s Health Action Trust; the New Zealand Federation of Graduate Women; the international Coalition Against Trafficking in Women; the Maxim Institute; the Commissioner of the Salvation Army—and I would like to mention that we are approaching the 120th anniversary of the Salvation Army. There is no organisation in modern times that has a more distinguished track record in terms of helping women adjust their lives and to leave the prostitution industry to enjoy that God-given dignity and femininity to which they were originally called. The list continues: Cardinal Thomas Williams, Archbishop of Wellington and the Metropolitan of the Catholic Church in New Zealand, the Christchurch City Council, the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, the Catholic Women’s League, the Association of Catholic Women, the Catholic Help Group, and ECPAT New Zealand, which is the global network to protect children against commercial, sexual exploitation.

I also want to bring to the Committee’s attention an article written by Debbie Hager and Anna Pickering of the Prostitutes Collective, which is a vested-interest group that supports rather than opposes this bill; yet its article contains the following: “This bill retains the provisions about brothel-keeping and living off the earnings of others.” However, the bill, of course, does no such thing. It does exactly the opposite. I quote further: “This legislation provides access to massage parlours, and other premises, by health and safety personnel.” Again, that is wrong. The present bill, in fact, repeals the Massage Parlours Act. Accordingly, it would appear that the Prostitutes Collective, which, as I do, supports the general purposes of this bill, as per clause 3, does not understand that it actually repeals the crimes of brothel-keeping, pimping, and procuring, and the Massage Parlours Act. This is understandable, since these very important repeals, which are at the heart of this bill, are buried away in clause 10 in just a couple of lines. I find that confusion about the purpose of the bill to be common right across New Zealand.

As I have said previously, and repeat now, I think it is wrong for Parliament to be repealing brothel-keeping, pimping, and procuring, and, indeed, the Massage Parlours Act by the stealth of the progressive-sounding purposes of clause 3, when the decriminalisation of those highly exploitative activities is regressive. The predominant purpose of this bill, as set out in clause 3, namely, to “safeguard the human rights of sex workers and protect them from exploitation,”, is in direct contradiction to the provisions of clause 10, which repeals brothel-keeping, soliciting, and procuring.

For that reason alone, this bill cannot be allowed to stand, because not only is it internally inconsistent; it is, indeed, contradictory. I therefore find it difficult to believe that anyone, on the basis of reason and common sense, could support the bill as it has been presented to the House.

I want to suggest a way forward in this matter that the Committee might be prepared to consider. Two options are open to us: either we can vote to defend this bill on its third reading, or we can attempt to clean it up through the Supplementary Order Paper process by eliminating, at least, its great evils. If members are of that mind, I suggest they vote in favour of the following Supplementary Order Papers—firstly, that of Dr Wayne Mapp, which puts in place some common-sense limitations surrounding soliciting, but retains brothel-keeping, procuring, and pimping as crimes under the Crimes Act; my Supplementary Order Paper, which reinstates the Massage Parlours Act, and the same would be true of Larry Baldock’s recent Supplementary Order Paper; my Supplementary Order Paper that bans the advertising of commercial sexual services; and Lianne Dalziel’s Supplementary Order Paper, which revokes the visas of international students who work in the prostitution industry.

Since the Committee last convened on this bill, I and my colleague Larry Baldock have undertaken a poll, through UMR Insight, of 500 representative New Zealand voters, and I would like to spend a moment, if I may, in announcing to the Committee the result of that poll. The poll asked New Zealanders three distinct questions: “Did you know that under the current law, prostitution itself is legal?”. Sixty-one percent of New Zealanders responded “No”. They did not know that prostitution in New Zealand was already legal—in fact, it has never been illegal in this country. That illustrates very strongly the proposition I have put to the Committee tonight—that there is a tremendous confusion in this country about what this bill is about, and only gradually are people waking up to the fact that the bill legalises brothel-keeping. The second question was: “Brothel-keeping and bringing customers to prostitutes for payment are presently illegal. Do you think these activities should become legal, as proposed by the Prostitution Reform Bill?”. The responses were very interesting. The “Yes” number was 43 percent. The “No” number was 42 percent. So we can say in statistical terms that it was a fifty-fifty outcome.

However, when we look at the detailed breakdown of that question—about whether brothel-keeping should become legal—by gender and by age, we have some startling results. The females of this country are against legalising brothels by a margin of 46 percent to 38 percent—the others being “unsure”, and so on; whereas, the men of this nation, by a directly opposite amount—49 percent to 37 percent—are in favour of that course of action. That proves exactly the point I made earlier in my speech—which, by the way, I wrote before we got the poll results. When we look at the breakdown by sex, the first point to make is that the females are against and the males are basically for. However, this is something that is much more interesting than that: the females in the 18 to 30 age group—that is, the young women who will be affected most by the bill if it is passed—by a margin of three to one, are against the legalisation of brothel keeping, pimping, and procuring. That is an extremely important statistic. It says to me again that my prediction is exactly right, and that Sweden is on the right side of history and we are on the wrong side of history. The young women of this country are saying to each person in this Committee tonight, whether male or female, and to the executive outside it: “Do not legalise brothel-keeping, pimping, and procuring in this country because it will exploit us, and it will be bad for us.” This is the most self-realised group of young women in the history of this country.

I want to say one more thing. If we look at our $10 bill, we will see the face of Kate Sheppard, one of the most heroic women in the history of this country. She fought to give women the vote and to see women treated with equal dignity along with men. I believe she would turn over in her grave if she were here tonight to see us even contemplating the legalisation of these highly exploitative matters. I have to go right back almost to slavery to think of anything more exploitative than what we are proposing to do in this bill in terms of brothel keeping, pimping, and procuring. It is wrong, and we should put a stop to it here and now.

I seek leave to table three documents. The first is the article from Debbie Hager and Anna Pickering of the Prostitutes Collective.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The second is a document from Gunilla Ekberg of Sweden, setting out the Swedish Government’s policy in relation to this matter.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The third is the poll I mentioned, but I should also have mentioned that 75 percent of New Zealanders are against the advertising of commercial sexual services.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): As I understand it, New Zealand First members of Parliament, to a person, are against the—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Who is that man?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: The senior whip on the Government side wants to know who I am. My name is Doug Woolerton, and I am about to speak on this bill this evening—I hope without too many interruptions from him. However, we in New Zealand First will vote against this bill to a person. We believe it is naive in the extreme. The bill states that its purpose is to ensure that prostitutes are looked after better and to make their lives safer, more acceptable, and so on—I am not quoting it word perfect. But it will do nothing of the kind, and every person with any sense at all knows it. It is bills like this that make people outside of this place wonder whether the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

There is no sense to this bill whatsoever. Everywhere in the world where prostitution has been legalised, prostitution increases. More often than not, prostitution uses young women. Wherever prostitution is legalised, the use of young women increases, and, as the previous speaker said, they are almost sold into slavery. This bill legalises pimps, it legalises brothel owners, and it does nothing at all for prostitutes or for the general public of New Zealand. It would be an interesting situation if our forefathers could come back to see what we have come to in this country in proposing bills like this one—bills that attempt to make the unacceptable acceptable, that try to make the unsavoury savoury. We cannot do that by the passing of a bill of this nature.

If indeed this bill were to make society better, then we would be for it. If it were to increase productivity in New Zealand, then we would be for it. If it were to help our children, we would be for it. If it were to help our mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers, we would be for it. But it will not do any of those things, and it is a blasphemy on this nation. What has happened to societal rules? What has happened to those things that take us away from the animals of this world? What has happened to the nice things in society? What has happened to the things about which we politely do not speak? What has happened to those places we pass quietly by with our children, and say: “These things happen, my dear, but we don’t talk about them.’’, and take our children on down the road? That is what society does. That is what hundreds of years of teaching and refining our society has done. We do not need bills like this that take us closer to the jungle that we have come away from. This bill is a blasphemy, and I will vote against it with pride.

I wish to speak particularly about the amendments to the bill, because that is where we are at at this particular stage. I am promoting a Supplementary Order Paper that is based on the Swedish law, which prosecutes the client rather than the prostitute. I remind the Committee that there are basically two views around this: one that views prostitution as a job that could, and should, be regulated; and the other, which regards it as exploitation of men and women.

New Zealand has obligations under the United Nations, in particular the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, where we have said we would aim to get rid of prostitution. People say to me that I am naive, that it will go underground, and so on. Prostitution will always be underground because the clients are underground. We have heard from other speakers that about 80 percent of the clients are married men who do not go around boasting that they are using prostitutes.

I believe that many of the amendments have confused many members in this Committee and that members may vote without being very clear what they are voting for when we get to that particular stage. I know that some members have certain misgivings about this whole issue. I want to speak about the amendments in the name of Phil Goff, Sue Kedgley, and Gordon Copeland, many of which are what I call Nimby amendments. Members should remember what has already been said tonight: prostitution is not illegal; it is the soliciting that is illegal. Many of these amendments are basically reintroducing into the bill some regulations around soliciting. They either say that people cannot advertise here or that they cannot advertise there. They are what I basically say are not-in-my-backyard restrictions—that is: “I do not mind prostitution as long as there is not a sign in my street and as long as it is not where I can see it, or where my kids can see it.

These amendments, I believe, are really very much not-in-my-back-yard amendments. They mean: “Prostitution is OK as long as it is nobody I know and I do not have to see it.”, which I think is really ignoring prostitutes as a whole. I was tempted to put in an amendment that says: “OK, if we’re really thinking of equality for men and women under prostitution, why don’t we license the clients and have health checks on them?” When I say that, most people laugh and snigger. But if people are laughing and sniggering, it just shows—as has been mentioned already tonight—the inequalities in the whole law dealing with prostitution.

Lianne Dalziel also has an amendment, which, I think, borders somewhat on racism and protectionism. It says it is OK for New Zealanders born here to work as prostitutes, but it is not OK for someone to come here on a work permit and work as a prostitute. That is a very strange amendment, and it is inconsistent if we are thinking that prostitution is a valid job, which, I understand, it would become under this bill. Then there is Marc Alexander’s amendment, which is a little like mine. However, it also says we should prosecute both the prostitute and the client, and I have problems with that. In most other contracts we say: “Let the buyer beware.” Marc Alexander’s amendment says to put the onus on the prostitute, so I will be voting against that one, as well.

As has already been mentioned tonight, the questions are about equality. It is not only about gender equality; it is about an imbalance of power between prostitutes and their clients, and I think an amendment in the Swedish mode would be the best way to deal with it. I am also concerned that not many members of the public have really looked at the issues. I know that heads of organisations, particularly some women’s organisations, have made statements. Very few members of local clubs whom I have talked to have actually discussed this matter. Very few of them have given their opinions, or have had the opportunity to give their opinions, to their head office, and they are only just coming to terms with some of the issues in the bill. I feel we should do as was done in Sweden: carry out proper research and look at independent research.

We have some very divided views at this Committee stage of the bill. Members will be casting a conscience vote, with most not having looked at the ramifications of the bill and the full implications involved. I would also like to comment that some people who are voting for the bill say that they do not agree with prostitution but are voting for the health measures. One could drive a bus through some of the health measures in this bill. They say that people who own brothels should take all reasonable health measures. I do not have faith that those people would take all reasonable measures—what is reasonable will be what appeals to the man on the Clapham omnibus, I suppose, heading towards a brothel. I do not believe that the health measures in this bill will actually protect prostitutes, and I believe that many who would work in brothels will be thrown out if they have a health problem. I do not see that that would protect many of the people we are trying to protect.

So I am urging people to vote for my amendment and to look very seriously at the papers and documents I have supplied on the theory and evidence around the actions taken in Sweden. Sweden has some very good laws—good laws that New Zealand has looked to in the past. The main reason it brought in its prostitution law was to have greater equality between men and women and to reduce the inequalities of power.

I support this bill and many of the amendments that have been proposed, some of which better protect prostitutes against crime, violence, ill-treatment, and super-exploitation. I do not think that this is a pro-prostitution bill. Decriminalising prostitution will make it easier for people, including social workers, to talk to prostitutes openly about better life options, because prostitutes will not have to worry about the people they talk to dobbing them in to the police. I do not believe that anyone would prefer to be a prostitute. I do not believe that people prefer to have sex with people they do not know, or do not like, and who treat them with disrespect. But the work of finding alternatives for individual prostitutes is much better done in a decriminalised environment.

As a society we have to deal with why there is a supply of prostitutes. Most prostitutes do this degrading work because of poverty or economic need, often combined with the need to finance a drug habit. I am pretty sure that there were not as many prostitutes in New Zealand when I grew up, which was in a climate of full employment and much lower drug dependency.

I agree with Deborah Coddington’s objection to prostitution. In her words: “It reduces the most private and personal exchange to a commercial transaction.” But unlike ACT members, I think the problem has been made worse by the extension of the market’s commercial transactions into more and more areas of human relations. Everything is up for purchase, including sex, sometimes in the form of prostitution, and at other times in the form of wealthy men effectively buying their wives. I do not think that super-rich 70-year-olds, like Rupert Murdoch, have attractive young wives just because of their sex appeal. In this highly commercial society, one unfortunately becomes what one can buy. A rich person collecting valuable art becomes an art connoisseur, even if he or she knows nothing about art. Real human and community values become subverted, and are continually under challenge—as we have seen in this House, for example, with the efforts to commercialise the few remaining public holidays when shops are shut. In summary, prostitution prospers in a new-right environment, which is another reason for driving back the commercialise-everything agenda.

The other underpinning of prostitution is moral conservatism, which is ironic in view of the United Future party’s opposition to this bill. We have just heard a speech by Gordon Copeland, in which he tried to differentiate males from females, almost defining women as a separate species with some special feminine characteristics. It is that attitude that creates sexism towards women, and creates more prostitution. In terms of his and his colleagues’ definition of male sexuality, I would like to quote one of Paul Adams’ earlier speeches. He said: “There is a moral code to protect us from ourselves, in our own fleshly desires, which I know can be very, very strong. The sex drive in men is one of the strongest desires we have to fight against.”

In my opinion, that is a very negative attitude towards sexuality and the sex drive. It is a very repressive attitude that actually increases the number of males going to prostitutes. Paul Adams said in his speech that 60 percent of the male clients of prostitutes are married, which may be true, but the answer is not to lecture men about controlling their sex drive. That Victorian approach produces only the opposite—more prostitution. That puritanical attitude often carries with it a lot of hypocrisy. I am not talking here about United Future members, but we have seen it time and time again with all sorts of television evangelists, British so-called family-friendly Tory politicians, and priests. The reality is that we live in a pretty sexually dysfunctional society, and there are no easy solutions. However, being able to talk more openly about the issues is important. As I was saying, there are no easy solutions, but to be able to talk about issues of sexuality, and act more openly, is important, and I think the bill will help us in that.

It was good to see a large article in the Dominion Post this morning trying to do some educational work in respect of the sexual problems of couples. We have to recognise that sexuality is expressed in a glorious variety of ways, and we should not put up moralistic barriers, or put people into boxes. If people feel too constrained, they will escape and seek the solace of secret, anonymous, commercial sex, which means increased prostitution. That is one of the reasons that we should not extend censorship to try to cover nudity and other things—the way the Government Administration Committee wants to with the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act. We should not in any way limit the various legitimate forms of sexual expression and appreciation that do not have victims, because that only pushes people into undesirable forms of sex, like prostitution. This is all related to what we are trying to do with this bill, because if we do not get a more sexually functional society, we will continue to have a lot of prostitution.

I support this bill, because it is one way of starting to deal with the problem. It will be out in the open, and we can deal directly with what prostitution is about and the issues behind it. We can deal with the problems of trying to change our society to one that is less sexist, because a sexist society tends to favour demeaning acts towards women, like prostitution. We can change our society to one that is more socially just where women are not forced into prostitution. We can change our society to one that is less moralistic and more libertarian, so that we can openly discuss the questions and reduce the prevalence of prostitution in our society.

I want to speak only very briefly in this debate, and on the Supplementary Order Paper in my name. It relates to amendments in respect of the Immigration Act to ensure that our obligation under the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime and its protocols on the smuggling of migrants and trafficking of persons can be fully engaged in respect of prostitution and commercial sexual services. That is to ensure that in decriminalising the laws on prostitution, we do not unwittingly allow people to be brought into the country for the purposes of prostitution. That matter was brought to my attention by the office of the Minister of Justice, and also by United Future, which brought it to my attention through a question in the House. I undertook to do some work on the provisions of the Immigration Act to see whether the concerns that had been raised could be addressed.

The provisions set out on the Supplementary Order Paper include, in new clause 8B: “(1) No permit may be granted under the Immigration Act 1987 to a person on the basis that the person—(a) has provided, or intends to provide, commercial sexual services”. Concern has been expressed that the expression “has provided” would prevent people who have reformed from a previous life in prostitution and are wanting to settle in New Zealand. That is not the case. The basis of the application is that they have provided commercial sexual services, so it is not intended to cover somebody simply because he or she has in the past provided commercial sexual services.

I quote further from the provision: “(b) has acted, or intends to act, as an operator of a business of prostitution; or (c) has invested, or intends to invest, in a business of prostitution.” That basically covers temporary entry to New Zealand under a student permit, work permit, visitor’s permit, limited purpose permit, and the long-term business visa provisions, which are work permits as well. That measure will ensure, for example, that the provision of commercial sexual services, and the operation of a business of prostitution, will be out of the question in respect of people who come here as students and get a permit to allow them to undertake work while they are studying. Indeed, if people undertake that form of work, their permits will be revoked. I know that members opposite take a different view on the substance of this bill, and that is why they are making somewhat unnecessary interjections, but I remind them that the whole purpose of work permit policy relates to skills shortages in New Zealand, and that the long-term business visa policy is aimed at developing New Zealand’s economic position. Therefore, in neither case does this particular area apply.

The last thing I want to say is simply that I was asked by a United Future member whether this measure would pick up the middlemen—and they are almost always men—and the answer to that question is yes. Somebody who brought somebody into New Zealand with the intention of breaching this provision—and, indeed, any other provision of the Immigration Act—would be guilty of a very serious offence under the Immigration Act and would face those consequences.

Whilst I respect the aims of the member who has just resumed her seat, and what she is trying to do, I do not know how she is going to police it. I do not know how she is going to stop it. We cannot stop “homers”—for want of a better term—on the black market right now. How will she stop students who are determined to earn money being prostitutes from doing that? She did not once refer to that; she just referred to the Opposition asking questions, but did not even attempt to answer them.

When this bill was first introduced 2 years or so ago, its stated aim was to decriminalise prostitution on the pretext of improving the health of sex workers and reducing violence against them. Those of us on the Justice and Electoral Committee know that when we visited the Prostitutes Collective in various parts of the country, they knew all about the safe-sex regime that is now in place; we do not have to educate them in any way. Indeed, when we met the Christchurch Prostitutes Collective, they said: “You can only stay and talk to us for an hour, because we’ve got health workers coming in to give us guidance on this, that, and everything.” The first thing they showed us was cupboard full of condoms and goodness knows what. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that will change that for the better. If the situation needs to be changed, it can be changed now.

This bill is all about—and I challenge Tim Barnett to take a call and refute this—expanding this industry. He wants to expand the prostitution industry for both men and women. I understand that the Prostitutes Collective once employed him in some sort of public relations-marketing role. Maybe he can stand and tell us whether that is true or false, but I understand that that is what he wants to do. There are umpteen amendments to this bill. I will list just the names of the people who are putting forward amendments: Dr Paul Hutchison, Dianne Yates, Marc Alexander, Stephen Franks, Larry Baldock, Sue Bradford, Gordon Copeland, Wayne Mapp, Phil Goff, and Lianne Dalziel. This bill has been with the select committee for 2 years, and we are getting that number of amendments trying to change it—all different, and from all over the show.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: That all happened after I left!

The honourable member over there was muttering something, but if this bill is coming through with all these amendments, he clearly did not do his job as chairman of the select committee. This bill will do nothing to improve the health of prostitutes, or reduce violence towards prostitutes. What it will do is totally decriminalise prostitution, and that is its stated aim. A non-stated aim is to decriminalise pimps—people who make money largely out of selling young women’s bodies. Like car salesmen sell cars, pimps sell young women’s bodies. Is that what we want to do? Is that the incentive we want to give to those people—that is, they can do it and now become a respectable businessman in that line of business?

In this country right now—and I had the pleasure of speaking to her yesterday—is Dr Melissa Farley, a lady with some considerable knowledge of this industry on a worldwide basis. The time I was talking to her went by very quickly, and I had time to take a limited amount of notes. Because I saw it as a chief officer on a ship, I have always contended that prostitution has expanded in all the countries where it has been liberalised. I have seen that at first hand, and I have seen how prostitution expanded in this country when the police took their foot off the accelerator. In Thailand, for example, approximately 14 percent of the gross domestic product—US$27 billion a year—is derived from sex work. Is that what we want?

💬 Jill Pettis: This bill is not going to stop that.

This bill makes Thailand look like a bunch of pussycats. The member over there thinks that this bill is out of line with Thailand. I can tell her that the Minister of Immigration will have her work absolutely cut out. People will be coming to this country not only to sell their services as pimps, but also to bring in young women under false pretences. The Minister has now seen fit to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper, and a sex tourist industry will come into this country like nobody’s business. [Interruption] Let them shout; I am not worried about them in the least.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Supporting it!

Dover Samuels should keep shouting. In all honesty, if this bill is passed tonight or in the near future, this industry will expand considerably. There will be more drug abuse, and that industry will be a front for it. There will be more child prostitution, and that industry will be a front for it. There will be more sexual activity, leading to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, and there will be trafficking of women. Damien O’Connor seems to think that this is a light-hearted speech.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Oh no, I think it is a serious one.

He should take it very seriously, because this bill is selling young women in New Zealand short.

💬 Judith Collins: And boys.

And boys, but young women in particular. There will be more violence against prostitutes, and there will be more blatant advertising. Sue Bradford wants to bring in an amendment to look at advertising. On the select committee, she pooh-poohed that sort of idea. A disproportionate number of Māori people will be involved in this industry. If anybody refutes that, Dr Farley has met—

💬 Jill Pettis: Do you think that might have something to do with poverty?

It might well have something to do with poverty, but you will encourage them. Yes, you will! Not only will you encourage women to get into the industry, you will encourage the men to get the women in.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring the Chairperson into the debate. Also, what I want in this House is what everyone wants, and that is order. Let us have a bit of respectful chatter.

Mr Chairperson, I do know that you would not encourage them. I have watched you try to encourage a football team, and without much success at that. I was referring to the member over there. That was a little light-hearted bit. However, if prostitution in this country becomes subject to the free market—as this bill will basically allow it to become—not only will women be committing degrading acts, but they will be competing with other women to do those degrading acts. I have seen women in countries where prostitution has been liberalised actually fighting over a client. That is what this bill will do.

I shall return to the statistics produced by Dr Farley. She has interviewed 46 prostitutes in the short time she has been here. Of the 46, 22 were Māori. I challenge the Māori members over there to stand up and support this bill. If they do, my colleagues and I will be rubbing it into them very hard in the fullness of time. The only way to go in this country is to adopt laws similar to the Swedish model. In her wisdom, Dianne Yates has put in a Supplementary Order Paper along those lines, but it is not comprehensive enough. New Zealand First has done much research on this issue, and my colleague Brent Catchpole has a well-researched and constructed member’s bill in the ballot that follows the Swedish model. If we really want to do something about prostitution in this country, we should be going along those lines.

France, Finland, Norway, and Denmark are looking at tightening up their legislation. We are looking at liberalising it. We should be taking a leaf out of the Swedish book and copying the Swedish model. With due respect to Dianne Yates, and I know she means well—

This debate has been very interesting. I know that a lot of members have honourable intentions insofar as this bill is concerned. Certainly, the member who is in charge of the bill may have good intentions, but I want to make it clear from the outset that I oppose every provision of this legislation. Firstly, I come from a background of Christian people and people who have been missionaries. I say that, not because I want to appear righteous but I would like to explain my background as a Christian. I am proud of that, and I stand for Christian values. I know that the Pacific community I represent is very much a Christian community and it opposes this bill.

I make it clear that, despite the member’s good intentions about the protection of sex workers and so on, I am particularly concerned about what I see in Manukau, and some of my colleagues from Auckland are concerned too. We see 13 and 14-year-olds walking the streets of Manukau selling themselves, because they cannot afford to support themselves. It is absolutely outrageous that, in a well-off country like this, some of those girls and other young people—no doubt, young boys, in due course—will begin to sell themselves, because they do not have the means to support themselves and their children. Some of them are no more than babies themselves—babies having babies. I oppose this bill, because this Parliament’s message to the community is important. If we begin to send the wrong message, then despite the good intentions behind the bill we will be abdicating our responsibility to this nation.

Despite the good intentions of the member, the statistics and facts show that decriminalisation of prostitution leads to an increase in activity and an expansion of the industry. That is precisely the experience overseas, and I state clearly that members should seriously consider those facts before they decide to vote in favour of this legislation.

I make it quite clear that communities with a lot of low-income families are experiencing not only social and economic problems but some of the young people are facing drug problems. Prostitution is an easy option to get money to pay for their addictions, and I am particularly concerned about that. If we decriminalise prostitution, that will send a message out there that prostitution is OK. I believe more of those young people will use prostitution as a way of funding their addictions. That is a big concern in a community where there is a lot of truancy, burglaries, and drug taking by young people.

If we want to start solving those sorts of issues confronting young people, then we have to face the reality of what is happening in low-income communities such as mine. I want to speak out strongly in opposition to this bill. I know that a very high percentage of young Māori children are homeless in the city, and that fact was mentioned by the previous speaker. They are displaced because of high unemployment and displaced from rural areas. They are actually living under bridges. My colleague Dover Samuels can vouch for this. He visited Auckland City on a Friday night and found homeless children living under bridges, all over the city. They were looking at how to survive, and prostitution is an easy way to survive on the streets of Auckland.

I am not a puritan. I heard somebody earlier quote from the Bible about Jesus confronting a crowd that was about to stone a prostitute. Jesus said: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” He did not condemn. None of us are so righteous that we can condemn or point the finger at anybody. Christ did not condemn the woman but had mercy on her, and then told her to sin no more. What I am trying to say is that nobody can claim to be righteous in this House. We have a responsibility as members of Parliament, and as a Parliament, to send the right message to our communities and to our nation.

This is the first call I have taken on this bill. I did vote for it when it was introduced to the Parliament, and I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee in the last Parliament that was dealing with this proposed legislation. I voted for the bill when it came in because it said that it dealt with the health and safety of prostitutes. I have no problem with that—I do not think that anyone in this Parliament would have a problem with addressing those issues. This bill does not do that. In the course of that bill being worked through the select committee it changed quite dramatically. It changed to a point where it was no longer focused on meeting the health and safety needs of women who are engaged in this industry, but rather sought to seek some sort of normalisation. I have heard people in this Chamber, and there have been some good speeches. I think those members who have taken the time to put up amendments should be commended. It is an important issue, but I do not think that this Parliament has even scratched the surface.

This bill now says that normalisation of prostitution is OK. I have a problem with that. I am not coming at it from a religious point of view. I am not coming at it from a moralistic point of view. I am simply coming at it from the point of view of the type of society that I want to live in and that I want to leave for my children. It is a society that does not engage or condone the trafficking of women. Although we have had some passionate arguments, I have also had correspondence—and I am sure other members have too—from a large number of women’s organisations that say that the bottom line of this is that it is OK. I too disagree with that, and I will not support the bill.

I have heard a large number of arguments in the House saying that this legislation is not seeking to normalise. Well, when this Parliament has to look at accompanying this legislation with a Supplementary Order Paper that says that Work and Income New Zealand will not be able to direct women to advertised positions for prostitutes, then tell me what we have done, if not normalise? We have normalised it. When we are asking councils to look at zoning matters, and when we are asking the court to take responsibility for deeming that a person who runs a brothel and profiteers off women’s bodies must be a right and proper person to do that, then we are normalising. That is not the sort of society that I want to live in. I would like to live in a society where women are treated with respect. I am afraid that I am old-fashioned enough to believe that where sex is not accompanied with familiarity, with respect—God willing, even love—then I am afraid it is not an act that I want to be party to normalising.

I had the privilege of speaking with a number of Norwegian women at the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union conference. They were full of forebodings and warnings for this Parliament about the course of action that we are taking. Their experience has not been good. It is a bit like selling off the electricity companies. How does one go backwards? That is the position that they are in now. That is what they are trying to deal with.

I think that it is very trendy and there is something very progressive about being liberal, a freethinker, a free spirit, and all the rest, but members really need to ask themselves whether they actually accept that this is a viable career for young women, whether this is a valuable option available to them. If members do not think that, then they should bite the bullet and hold their head up, and not be ashamed to vote against this legislation.

I look forward to the day when this Parliament brings forward a piece of legislation that does really deal with health and safety issues for prostitutes. This legislation does not, and I will not be supporting it.

That was a very good speech from the previous speaker, and I agreed with every word that she said, except that I did not ever vote for this bill. I read this bill, and it is not about the health and safety of women and men who are prostitutes. It is about normalisation of prostitution. Prostitution should not be a normalised activity. It is not something that should be on a CV. It is not something for which there should be a career choice. It is not something that should ever be a career’s day activity with work experience in our schools. That is what this bill is all about. This bill is all about normalising an activity that is not something that should ever be normalised. It is not right. That is it.

It does not worry me one scrap that there are people who wish to be prostitutes. They currently work in massage parlours or else they work on Hunter’s Corner in Papatoetoe. A few weeks ago, I was with the police emergency response unit. We popped in to see the prostitutes on Hunter’s corner. I had been told that the police constantly harass those people. What a load of rubbish! We turned up. They came over and said: “Hi, how are you tonight? Oh, is that the lady off TV?”. Well, of course it was; that was me! Then they said to the police: “How’s your night going?”. The police replied: “How’s your night going?”. Well, the answer was—and these are the prostitutes who are victimised by the police, as we are constantly told by the people who want to normalise prostitution—“There’s a guy up the road who’s been hassling us. Can you go and sort him out?”. So off we went looking for the guy who had been hassling the prostitutes. What sort of hassling is that?

We came back and found a prostitute sitting sniffing glue from a glue bag. Well, frankly, if one is doing that sort of job one probably needs to sniff glue. The police officer said: “Now look, I’ve told you that you can’t go around sniffing glue out of your glue bag.” He took the glue bag off the prostitute and threw it away. I say: “Good on him for doing that.” The prostitute’s reaction was: “Oh, OK.”. That was it. There was no hassle. It is a load of rubbish to say there was.

If this bill was about stopping people from being prosecuted for soliciting, then I would probably support it, because all we would have to do is simply amend the current law to remove the offence of soliciting—which currently I am told carries a $200 fine. That is all we would need to do. But this bill goes so much further than that. It is really saying: “Let’s have pimps. Pimps would be fine.” These pimps will have strings of women and men working for them, selling their services, feeding them with drugs, and beating them up if they do not go to work. That is what this Parliament will be legalising, if this bill goes through.

It is a very, very sad day when we are spending yet another day of this Parliament’s time debating the sort of nonsense that this bill puts forward. We have far more important issues in this country, yet this Parliament spends so much time on this nonsense. It has spent 2 years of select committee hearings and deliberations on this. The people of this country are saying to us to get on with something that is serious, yet this Parliament is constantly talking about prostitution. We should not have this bill.

This bill does not look after the health of prostitutes. If it did, the first thing we would do is get prostitutes into a situation where they are no longer prostitutes. As for that member over there—that Government junior whip, Jill Pettis, who has always got something to say but never stands up and takes a call—I ask why she does not stop her screeching, get up, make a sensible speech as other members have tonight, and actually be a contributor to this Parliament. I know that Mr Brown says that is not possible, but I like to live in hope. Please let us live in hope.

This bill is a very bad bill. It is sending a signal to our young people that this is in fact an occupation that they can go along with. It is an occupation where we are going to say, if this Parliament goes through with this bill: “It is OK. You don’t have to keep trying at school. You don’t have to go out and do a job like truck driving or whatever. You can go and be a prostitute—and, guess what? It is not really that bad.” Well, it is that bad. It is an absolute denigration of people and of everything for families.

I rise in support of this bill, and I am very sad at what I have witnessed and heard in the speeches tabled in this House. This bill has done something to this House that I have not seen in the 4 years I have been at Parliament. It has pitted women against women, it has pitted the church against the humanists among us, and it has treated women who choose the profession of prostitution as if they are the lowest of the low and the scum of the earth. I am appalled at it.

This bill has brought out homophobic responses that have simply disgusted me. I received a group of marchers in Rotorua—200 came to me. They were all people whom I know and respect, and I think that their church probably does more for their well-being as church members than the State does. But they also cast aspersions on women who choose prostitution as a profession, and did not mention the men. That did not happen at all. The men are fine. They can go and use the services of a prostitute, but those marchers denigrated the women, and did not awhi them in to their lives and show them there is another way.

I have experience in this profession, in that I ran a women’s health service. I do not think that many members understand what happens in the real world. Do members know that for those people who use the mental health service we engaged the services of a prostitute through State health services. We did that to stop peeping toms, perverts, and people who had problems with their own sexual health and identification? We actually pay for them to use the services of a prostitute, and it keeps the community safe.

The other thing we do in public health services in this country is encourage and fund the Prostitutes Collective to go in, work alongside the industry to help women who might choose to get out of the industry, and also to help women to check their health and safety needs so that they keep themselves safe and do not get into the dangers of unsafe sex practices—which clients are prepared to pay more for. They encourage those women to protect their bodies from sexually transmitted infections.

This bill aims to take away the criminalised aspect of that, and it de-penalises the aspect of having evidence of safe sex on the premises—that is, condoms, sheaths, diaphragms, and lubricants. If those things are found on the premises, who gets the criminal charge? The prostitute does, and that is unfair. There is no talk of the men, at all. In fact, 13 women were arrested in Auckland just in December. That is evidence that this is going on right now. Clause 6 provides for those health and safety in employment practices.

I admire the Prostitutes Collective. It has done a wonderful job with us in public health, and in working with women. Its members are not the lowest of the low; they are married women, and women who have chosen to go into this industry. It is certainly not where I want my child to go. I have heard ridiculous aspersions made in this House that this bill normalises prostitution. What absolute rubbish! Prostitution is part of society, and has been for years and years. We will not change that. We will not change that with a legal status, but we will decriminalise it so that the prostitute does not commit an offence—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Prostitution is already legal.

That is right. We will decriminalise the evidence of safe sex practices—that is all. I think that that is very safe and very sound legislation.

I am also really tired of hearing the allegation that we are going to destroy the very fibre of families. I have looked at people who have stood up and said that, and they believe that their way of life is better than a more humanist approach. I do not accept the argument that we will break down the value and the fibre of the family, at all. We are a Government that has supported the Families Commission. We are looking at those aspects that drive women into making a lot of money out of prostitution, and that is dealing with the root cause of prostitution, which is poverty. We all accept that. We are a Government that has taken that responsibility seriously.

Tēnei kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare. Kei te mihi hoki ki ngā mātua, ki ngā whāea o ngā tamariki e whakarongo mai ana ki ēnei whakawhitiwhiti kōrero i roto i te Whare Pāremata i tēnei pō.

Mr Chairman, I just acknowledged you as the chairman of the proceedings tonight, and I also acknowledged the many Māori parents, mothers and fathers, who have children and who are listening to this debate tonight.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not refer to radio listeners.

I am talking from the perspective of a father of two teenage children. Last year I was invited by the Māori Wardens Association to go to Auckland, particularly south Auckland, for two nights running. There I witnessed with my own eyes and saw a degradation of our mokopuna and our young babies. When I say that, I mean I took the time out overnight, until about 3 o’clock in the morning, to traverse the streets of Auckland with the Māori wardens. They are totally opposed to this bill. They are the people who are at the coalface, irrespective of all the academic arguments that relate to something that is more fundamental than this—that is, the exploitation of our young mokopuna and our young children. If they are determined to grow up to become adult prostitutes, that is their business. But from a father’s perspective, I am saying that I was outraged by the people I met, and very saddened by the young girls I met at Hunter’s Corner. Some of them were 13 years old, and some of them were my own relations, my nieces—unknown to me. When I mentioned what I saw to their parents, they were outraged that their children were on the streets at 3 o’clock in the morning, acting as prostitutes—prostituting themselves for so many dollars.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I did not denigrate anybody in terms of this debate, because this is a conscience debate. I respect everybody who has stood to make a contribution, and I will continue to do so. But I expect that other colleagues who differ in their opinion will also respect my position. I come from a different perspective—one that values women. In this country we have a Prime Minister who is a woman. Our Governor-General is a woman, as is our Chief Justice. They did not achieve those positions without struggle.

The struggle of women over many years right around this world has been highlighted by the evolution of women, specifically in its cultural aspects. We see the exploitation of women right around the world for some sort of cultural reason and cultural analysis. Right around this world we have seen women being degraded from birth until the time they die. I am proud to say that I am a New Zealander who has seen the evolution of women and the rights of women integrated into our modern society in New Zealand, and I will not stand by and see women degraded.

I will give an analysis of that. If a male walks into a brothel—or whatever it is—and has sex with a woman without her consent, that would contravene the criminal code, and that person would probably be liable to 7 years’ imprisonment. Think about this: the act, and the sequence of events, is exactly the same. If a male walks into a brothel and has sex with a woman without her consent, he would be charged with rape and could possibly end up in jail for a number of years. I ask members to think about this. If the same person goes through the same sequence of events, and pays $100, then the principle all of a sudden disappears. The degradation of women all of a sudden disappears. Where is the principle? What happened to it? What happened to the values that we hold dear to our hearts in terms of equality for women? What happened? Has it been paid off by $100? That is total and utter hypocrisy—think about it. Think about the underlying principles of what we are talking about. Simply because a woman has accepted $100, does it mean that the event is no longer illegal, and that we as a society, and as a people, accept it?

I want members to think about our mokopuna, and about the comparison I made in regard to mokopuna. What type of message is this Parliament giving to them, when a person can front up with $100 and everything is OK? The principle of the equality of women no longer applies. Where is the principle? This House should think about whether we can buy women’s values, simply because we make an exchange of money. Is that what we are talking about? Is that the honesty of the principle we are talking about? Let us get to the nitty-gritty. Let us get to the truth of it: we are saying that women have no value. The only value a woman has is determined by how much money we pay—is that what it is all about?

I want members to think deeply and very consciously about the principles of what we are trying to apply here if we support this bill, irrespective of all the amendments that go along with it to enable it to get through. I am asking members of this House to think deeply about the principle of the message we are trying to give our young mokopuna and our children who right now, tonight, are on the streets. As a father, as a parent, I ask members to think about what they are doing—would they do it to their own daughters? I would not do it to my daughter—would other members? I ask male and female members of the House—both my own Labour colleagues and colleagues across the other side of the Chamber—whether they would do this; whether would they take the risk? Members should stand up and be counted.

I come back to what I said before. Are we all about the exchange of values for money? Is that what we are all about? Can we buy everything? Can we buy the principles that we live by and believe in in this House? I ask every member of this House to examine his or her conscience about what we are doing tonight. Nō reira kei te mihi atu ki a tātou katoa. Kei te mihi aroha ki ngā—and I acknowledge the parents, both Māori and Pākehā, who are listening to this debate tonight, hoi anō tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou katoa.

This is the first time I have risen to speak in the debates on this bill. I accept that all who are speaking in the House tonight have sincerely held beliefs, and I want to declare my support for this bill. It is interesting that many members have got up and said that prostitution increases whenever it is decriminalised. There are absolutely no statistics to support that point of view. The reality is that, before decriminalisation, most of the activity was underground, outside the law, and not counted. Therefore, all that happens is that there is an increase in visibility, but not necessarily an increase in the activity.

It is interesting how many people have stood up in this House and talked about the degradation that attaches to the act of prostitution. That is their opinion, but, according to what they have said in this Chamber, they are not people who have engaged in that act. I have talked to a number of prostitutes and people from the Prostitutes Collective who do not see what they do as degrading to them. If it is an activity that they are indulging in through free choice, then there is nothing degrading about it. Some of us have done jobs that we have found pretty degrading over the years. I find cleaning other people’s toilets rather degrading, but when I was short of money as a student, I did that. So whether it is degrading is the decision of the person who is engaging in the activity.

It is interesting, too, that members over there do not take into account some of the very moving submissions that have been made by people with disabilities about their use of prostitutes. They did not find the activity degrading, and I am sure that those sex workers who helped those people out, and who provided that service, did not find it a degrading activity. Much is made about the fact that prostitution is not currently illegal, but if the act of soliciting is illegal, then that effectively makes the act of prostitution illegal, because one cannot get any clients for one’s work if one cannot solicit. I say to members of this Committee that if there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, there is no crime. I do not believe that the State has any need to take any interest in what consenting adults do in private.

I do believe that some of the amendments that have been put before the Committee will be useful. I do not wish to see the activity of prostitution advertised in picture theatres, in movies, on television, or on the front pages of our newspapers any more than I support the advertising of alcohol or cigarettes in that way. I do not support prostitution being advertised, but that does not mean that I wish to prohibit the activity. I think it is somewhat arrogant for members of this House to decide that they know what is right and what is wrong. Everyone has his or her own deeply held moral code, but what I think is immoral—for example, taking excess profits, treating workers badly, or paying them less than a living wage—is not necessarily a view shared by a number of people in this House. Members are entitled to their point of view, but I do not find the activity of prostitution immoral. Members should think very carefully before they make judgments that are based on their deeply held beliefs. They are entitled to live their lives as they wish to live them, and to hold fast to their own moral code—and I expect that they would, and should, because we find self-fulfilment in life by holding on to those things that we believe in deeply. However, members should not impose their beliefs on other people. Other people have a right to their own beliefs and moral code, and they should have the right to practise their own moral code as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

This bill does provide protection for young people—prostitution is only legal over the age of 18. If the activity is legal, it will be easier to police and therefore easier to protect young people.

I will start by saying that reform is desirable if we are to eliminate a double standard. Currently, the demand is legal and the supply is illegal. Changes are essential in the sex industry, and I am sure a lot of people agree with me on that. But this bill is not the answer. The proposed bill does little to restrict entry into the profession, to minimise the activity, or to encourage prostitutes to leave the industry. The law plays a major part in determining behaviour; that which is unpunishable by the law becomes increasingly accepted by society. Prostitution is a trade that has always been around. We all know that. None of us are naive enough not to think that. But so have burglary and drug trafficking. Does the logic that we might as well decriminalise the activity to protect those involved thus follow? I remember some members near me interjecting on a previous speaker and asking whether arresting these women is respecting them. I say to those members who were coming out with that argument that if they really meant what they were saying, they would support a bill making it illegal to buy sex. If they really wanted true reform, they would support Brent Catchpole’s bill, which is modelled on similar lines to Swedish law.

I also acknowledge the speeches made by a few members in the Chamber tonight. They were passionate speeches that really got to the heart of the matter and the issue. I acknowledge Taito Phillip Field’s speech. Taito Phillip Field had a very good point. He said that those of us who are against this bill are not puritans. I claim to be a Christian—everyone in this Chamber knows that—and I am proud of it, but that is not the sole reason that we are both against this bill. Janet Mackey made a very good argument for that. She did not come from any moral point of view; she came from a solely practical point of view, asking what would be good for the nation and good for the young people of this country.

I have been in Parliament for 9 months now. Walking through the corridors of power, one is able to see photos of this country’s Parliaments both past and recent. I am sure there are certain MPs and former Prime Ministers, like Holyoake, Holland, and Nash, who have passed away and would be turning in their graves tonight if they knew what was occurring here. But there was a photo of one former member of Parliament who left only a few years ago, in 1996—the Hon Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan. I have not talked to her about this—I have not talked to her in years—but I ask what she would think of this bill. She is a former member who is respected and honoured by many members of this House. Every member likes her, I am sure. I would ask what she thinks of this bill. I would almost put money on the fact that she would be against it, for the reasons the Hon Dover Samuels advanced in talking about the exploitation of young Māori women.

The bill treats commercial transactions for sex like the purchasing any other product or service. The reality is that prostitution is destructive for those who offer the service, for those who use the service, and for their families. Despite such terms as the “business of prostitution”, which means any person who carries on a business of providing commercial sexual services—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member’s time has expired.

I support the bill, and in doing so, I do what a number of other members have done—I acknowledge that this is a bill on which people have very deeply held beliefs. I do not challenge those, but I recognise that there is that difference of viewpoints in the Chamber. I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee so I share the view that was stated in the report. I neither condemn nor condone prostitution, but I do acknowledge its long existence and the enduring nature of that existence. Even members who are opposed to this bill have said that, as well. So I approach the current debate with the view that at the moment in our law we have a double standard.

As Dr Mapp noted, prostitution in itself is not illegal, but the other laws we have mean that it is almost impossible to work as a sex worker without infringing some law. One of the laws that is on the books, however, does actually criminalise a woman—it is normally a woman—selling sex but does not criminalise a man—and it is normally a man—purchasing sex. I do not believe that that is fair.

At the moment, the law is making a moral judgment. The law is saying that it is OK to buy sex but that it is not OK to sell it, and that is why, I believe, this bill asks how we can address that situation. Some people say we should go for the Swedish model and criminalise everybody. I do not believe that going for that model and criminalising everybody would do anything to address the concerns that opponents of the bill have—that prostitution is a bad thing that exploits people. I do not believe we would abolish or eliminate prostitution if both parties were being criminalised.

So we come, then, to the next step, and ask what the legal framework should be for prostitution. There are, I think, a number of important points that have not necessarily come out in the debate. The bill is being held up as being one of the most immoral pieces of legislation to come into the Chamber, yet it does not endorse or morally sanction prostitution in any way. That is an important statement. We are not, with this bill, trying to normalise prostitution. We are also saying that no one should be induced or compelled into prostitution. When Judith Collins was speaking earlier, she said we would be encouraging young people to work in this industry. The bill states that it is illegal to force somebody to work as a prostitute. At the moment, on streets around our cities, people are being coerced and forced into prostitution, and all the people who have concerns about that cannot do anything about it. This bill gives us the chance to make it illegal for people to be coerced into prostitution, and it gives us the chance to give the police the weight of the law to stop it, and I think that that is actually a very good thing.

I think it is a very good thing that the bill states that prostitution should not be promoted by schools, or by the Accident Compensation Corporation, or by Work and Income, and that people are not encouraged to work in that field. Judith Collins has said there will be career days advertising prostitution. Nobody who reads this bill could say that that was the case. We are not going to try to force people into that profession, at all.

The most important provision that I, as a younger member, argued for at the select committee, is that no one under the age of 18 be allowed to work as a sex worker. Everybody in this Chamber knows that at the present time there are sex workers under the age of 18, and that is wrong. The provisions in this bill mean that we will be able to make that illegal and we will be able to fight it. Bringing the issue of age into a legal framework, bringing it out from underneath the underground, as it currently is, will mean that people who work in the industry and are participating in it will be able to self-police and say, “Hey, I know the brothel down the road is actually encouraging people who are under the age of 18 to work in the sex industry.” For the first time, we can actually combat child prostitution—because we are setting out in the law the fact that no one under the age of 18 can work in that area. I think that is very important.

People have spoken about exploitation and the fact that they feel there is exploitation of people who work in this sector. As in many areas of employment in this country, there is exploitation, but I believe that simply hearing no evil, seeing no evil, and speaking no evil, and saying that the current law is working, will not end exploitation, at all. This bill does give us the tools to fight the very concerns that all members share, and most important, it does not pass moral judgment. It recognises the situation we have. I will be voting for this bill.

Firstly, I want to tautoko our kaumatua, the Hon Dover Samuels, and Taito Phillip Field for their presentations, and say that I totally agree with them. I want to speak about the title. I believe that the title should be “The Five Ds”: disgusting, disgraceful, demeaning, disastrous, and degrading—and degrading for Māoridom. This bill, I believe, will create havoc amongst our young Māori women. Already, our young Māori women are children pushing children. I challenge the Minister of Māori Affairs to come out and tell Māoridom whether this is his proposal for closing the gaps, or for development. Quite frankly, I want him now to get those Māori MPs to cross the floor. Where are they? We look deeply into there, and we see that the only one here tonight to represent Māoridom is the Hon Dover Samuels. I applaud Nanaia Mahuta for her stand in respect of where Māoridom will go.

I will touch a wee bit, too, on Māori women who are currently in the prostitution business. While I was in South Australia, I met a number of Māori women who belong to a Māori club, and who were participating in the prostitution game there. The thing was that they were in it for the money, so that they could fund their drug habits. That is what will happen here. Already, 2 or 3 months ago, we heard of 13-year old Māori girls involved in the trade. I hear here tonight that that will not happen. Well, I do not know where some members have been living, but I have been around all those sorts of people, in shearing gangs, and in the low life where these people do live. They are waiting for this bill to happen. They will move into this area and earn an income from being a prostitute.

We have seen among Māori the effects in terms of the domestic purposes benefit. It is used in a negative way as a tool or means of earning an income—have a child, earn some income; have another child, earn some more income. This bill is just another tool to drive the wedge between our young people. I challenge the Minister of Māori Affairs to convince his Māori members to change their votes. I am telling Parekura Horomia that Māoridom is listening and watching to see what he does, but we cannot hear him. This is my first speech on this bill. The prostitution industry—[Interruption] Jill Pettis, who is trying to interject, can go on as much as she likes, but I am coming from the point of view of where Māoridom sits. It has been said that this bill will not lead to more gangs being involved in the industry. I am telling the Committee that the gangs will front with a cleanskinned person, and he will purchase a parlour. They will then front up with the dough, and they will run it. They will run the pimps and they will trade in prostitution. The member will not even know—

💬 Government Member: And drugs.

And drugs. Last night in the House we heard about the use of methamphetamine. Brothels are the places where they will be selling it, in bulk, not only to the prostitutes but to everybody who goes in there, because the brothel will become a “tinny house” for drug dealing.

I want to talk about the abuse of women. We have heard tonight from some of the speakers about this. To abuse women is the lowest thing one can do. I love women. To abuse them in any way is degrading, as I said in my introduction, when I mentioned the Ds. It is degrading to treat women like that. Physically they will be abused. Mentally they will be abused. They will become drug addicts in the throes of being involved in this industry. We will see more children left at home alone. Already the country is flooded with programmes showing violence against women. I am telling members that that will increase.

💬 Jill Pettis: Where is the evidence?

The member probably has not even been there. She would not realise. Her Government is promoting anti-violence programmes, yet this bill will only increase violence. I want to talk about what happens in New South Wales. New South Wales has nearly 6 million people. Our country has only reached 4 million—if one wants to believe it is 4 million. It is probably a lot more. But we have gradually reached 4 million.

I have spoken before in support of this bill, and I stand to do so again today. I had the privilege of sitting alongside many colleagues on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I believe that I stand in support of this bill with more knowledge and more experience than many others—or more than many others would care to admit. The sex industry is about power. It is about the power of the police who choose whether to decide to enforce the law and prosecute those in the industry. It is about the power of clients who use a potentially illegal activity and are in no way liable or responsible. It is about the power of crime, of pimps, and of drug dealers who feed off this industry, and who can, unfettered, exploit every worker within the industry. It is about the power of society, which sits in judgment of an industry that exists—but it wants to deny it. It is about the power of those who vent their moral spleen against prostitution but will not examine their own lives, their own morals, or their own values. That is bad, but it gets worse, because the sex industry is about powerlessness. It is about young women under 18 years of age who are exploited and who cannot speak out about the abuse or exploitation that they experience. It is about workers who cannot talk about their health and safety, and cannot complain.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.