Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill

I move, That the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Let me begin by explaining to those members unfamiliar with the Counties-Manukau region of Auckland that it is unique in New Zealand, both in its diversity and in some of the problems it faces. It has over 160 different ethnic groups living in it, and it has some very large problems. However, Manukau is also New Zealand’s second-largest city and its most culturally diverse.

💬 Hon Jim Sutton: Hookers’ capital!

Unfortunately, my colleague says that it is the hookers’ capital. Many people who go around Manukau at night would probably agree with him that that is absolutely true.

Manukau is a very young city. About 40 percent of its population is under 25 years of age. Since its appearance in the late 1990s, street prostitution has become a significant and ongoing community concern. It has become established in suburban town centres that are now surrounded by traditional residential housing. Those areas include Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe, Ōtara Town Centre, and the Great South Road in Manurewa. There is a particular concern that the number of sex workers appears to be rising.

💬 Hon David Carter: Don’t advertise, George.

We do not need to advertise; they are out there every night, mate! In June 2003 the police established that there were 326 sex workers in the Counties-Manukau area, of whom 150 were street workers. There is anecdotal evidence that young people are increasingly being drawn into the world of street prostitution, and that was highlighted in a recent television investigation. The Manukau City Council contends that such soliciting makes people feel uncomfortable and unsafe, creates unwanted attention, and is a general nuisance to the population. The council says that street prostitution also encourages gangs and criminal behaviour, illicit drugs, substance abuse, and intimidating behaviour in areas where sex workers are present. What really annoys a lot of people is that those involved in prostitution have a huge impact on the community. Condoms have been left in school grounds and shop doorways and, of course, someone has to clean them up.

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

The Manukau City Council has committed itself to trying to do something about the problem of street prostitution. It has already invested considerable time and resources. Residents’ concerns have been incorporated into the council’s strategic policy documents, including its long-term council community plan. The council community plan is more than just a pile of words. The Manukau City Council itself, of course, has been acting. It has been lobbying for increased police involvement, the installation of additional street lighting, the rescheduling of times for street cleaning, and the closing of public toilets and car parks, to make sure that it has done everything it can do to eliminate street prostitution as far as possible. However, the problem still exists. The council has installed CCTV and used environmental design guidelines, yet, in the end, the problem remains.

Those who have been to Manukau and seen the problem for themselves will know just how ghastly it is. I know that my colleague Dover Samuels visited Manukau to see it for himself, and my colleague Tim Barnett met with the council to try to find ways to help it.

I think this Parliament took a big step forward when it legalised prostitution so that sex workers were generally able to operate from safe, regulated, and legal brothels. However, in Manukau there is a situation where street prostitution remains. This bill will of course be contentious, but I ask the House to send it off to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further consideration. Yes, there are Bill of Rights considerations to be explored. The council does not intend, nor does it want, to re-criminalise prostitution in the whole of the city, but it wants legal brothels, which this Parliament has provided for—although some people want to remain outside that provision.

It is not just the street prostitutes who are the problem; it is also the men who use the services of those prostitutes. Some of them are married, some of them are reasonably well-known—

💬 Peter Brown: Name them!

I was not going to name anyone, at all, but the problem is, I think, that people have been attempting to do so by photographing the cars and the curb crawling that has been going on. The council says that it is doing what it can, but that it now wants some help from Parliament.

Given the unique nature of Manukau, and the unique problems it is facing, this bill is a way forward for its people. On behalf of the council and the people of Manukau, I recommend this bill for further consideration. I have to say that Manukau has a council that works with its community. If it could have solved this problem easily by itself it would have done so, but for years it has been trying to overcome the problem—where condoms have to be cleaned up out of school playgrounds before the kids get to school, and where shopkeepers have to get rid of condoms before they open for business each day. That is not a fair go. The community realises that it is not the council’s fault that the problem exists.

This Parliament, not so long ago, tried to do something about the problem, but the people involved have remained outside that attempt, and now we have to look at the overall problem. I ask members in the House tonight to vote for the bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, so that it can be closely examined. When a council is prepared to face up to a problem, I think that that council deserves to have the support of Parliament. There are problems in terms of Bill of Rights considerations, but that should not make people vote against the bill going to a select committee. So I ask all members here tonight to ensure that they do the right thing by a council that is trying to do the right thing by its citizens. Let us help to clean up a problem.

The National Party will support the referral of the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I fully agree with the words just uttered by my parliamentary colleague George Hawkins that there is a problem. I congratulate Sir Barry Curtis and his council on this innovative way of coming up with a solution to their particular problem. But Parliament needs to discuss how the problem arose in the first place.

The very interesting thing that I managed to get from the Parliamentary Library was the voting record of one Hon George Hawkins when the Prostitution Reform Bill was before Parliament. Here we have a piece of legislation—a local bill—introduced by the Hon George Hawkins to tidy up a mess created by this Parliament when it passed the Prostitution Reform Bill. How did George Hawkins vote on that legislation? Members will be surprised to know that, lo and behold, on the first reading there is no record of his vote. [Interruption] Well, we had a few abstentions on that bill. I remember one Mr Choudhary, who sat in the back corner after he slunk into Parliament to cast an abstention vote. But on the first reading of the Prostitution Reform Bill, no vote was recorded by George Hawkins.

The new members of Parliament should not be surprised by that, because George Hawkins spent an extraordinary amount of time out of the House. He is the former Minister of Police. In question time we regularly had questions for the Minister of Police, and they were frequently answered by everybody other than the then Minister of Police, George Hawkins, because he was a complete embarrassment. But then I looked at how he voted in the second reading of the Prostitution Reform Bill, and—surprise, surprise—he voted for it. When we came to the third reading he voted for the Prostitution Reform Bill. Here we are, about 12 months later, with the first initiative by a local council that says that that legislation was a total disaster.

I am pleased that the architect of the Prostitution Reform Bill, Tim Barnett, is in the House tonight. However, he was not the real architect. That bill was prepared and put into Parliament at the instruction of Helen Clark. Tim Barnett was the sucker—the name—who came forward and put his name to the bill. I remember debating it in the House. I said to him: “Two things will happen. There will be far more prostitution on the streets.” Tim Barnett said that there would not be, and here we are with the Manukau City Council telling us that it wants a local bill passed because of that. The other thing many local Aucklanders have told me is that the reason this matter is such a problem is the number of young kids—18 years and younger—who are standing on the street corners of Manukau selling themselves. Again, Tim Barnett argued that that would not happen. It just goes to show how naive he and everybody else in this Parliament was in voting for the legislation. Of course we were going to see under 18-year-olds standing on the street corners selling themselves. We made it a legitimate profession in this country for people to be able to leave school and choose to be a prostitute.

💬 Sue Bradford: Not under 18.

Sue Bradford is absolutely right. They cannot be under 18. She thought that because the law says “not under 18” it would not happen. That is how naive Sue Bradford was with this legislation. Of course it was going to happen! And now Sir Barry Curtis comes along. He is a great mate of the Labour Party, but his is the very first council that has come up with an innovative solution to a disastrous piece of social legislation. So National will support the bill’s referral to the select committee.

It will be interesting to see when the other councils come up with a similar solution. Parliament passes a stupid law and straight away councils are having to come back and ask for a solution to it. I think that this bill should go to a select committee, and I also invite other city councils, all around New Zealand, that are striking similar problems to those recognised by Manukau City Council to come forward with local bills. I invite Ashraf Choudhary to cast a vote this time. Members should not be pressured by Helen Clark, who knew the numbers were so tight and actually started to instruct people within her caucus how to vote. [Interruption] She did not instruct me, I can assure that man. I do not take instruction from Helen Clark. Peter Brown might, Winston Peters definitely does—we know that; we have seen it all day today in the House—but I do not take instruction from Helen Clark. I decided how I would vote on my conscience, and I am quite proud of the way I voted. I think my vote was correct, and I think the very fact we have got this sort of legislation—

💬 Peter Brown: Which way did your leader go?

I cannot remember how my leader voted. That does not matter. He made up his own mind and cast his vote. He was not like Ashraf Choudhary, who had to get an instruction, and then sat in the back corner and abstained. He would not be prepared to come into Parliament, because the votes were that close. If my memory serves me right, the bill passed by one vote. In fact, Ashraf Choudhary could have stopped that legislation from passing, and we would not be facing the first local bill introduced by the Hon George Hawkins on behalf of Sir Barry Curtis because that legislation was disastrous.

George Hawkins came into the House after voting for that legislation, after sitting through hours of debate—certainly for the second and third readings—and after being told by people who opposed the legislation that there would be more prostitutes on the street corners, more condoms in the school yards, and more under-18-year olds, and he did not believe that.

💬 Sue Bradford: Where’s your proof of that?

I ask members to listen to what the promoter of the bill said. Only 5 minutes ago, the Hon George Hawkins, who was supporting this legislation’s referral to the select committee, went as far as to name the street corners that were causing problems. That is my proof. He is the local member. He knows the problem is occurring, so my question is: why does he not admit he was wrong in voting for the legislation in the first place? That is the real issue. We have similar problems in Christchurch City Council. I can name the street corners where there this has been a problem. I know that there has been a lot of media coverage in the paper about the young kids under 18 years of age. [Interruption] Peter Brown seems to think it is funny. I do not. I say to Peter Brown that I have young children and I do not want them to take on a career of prostitution.

💬 Peter Brown: Excellent!

Right—so it is not a joke. Anybody who voted for that legislation, and stupidly said that because we legalise prostitution we will not have a problem with under-age people taking up prostitution, was, frankly, either naive, or stupid, or both.

💬 Peter Brown: The member is exactly right!

I am pleased the member agrees with me on this occasion.

So I say to George Hawkins that I look forward to the submissions received before the select committee, and I look forward to other councils taking the initiative that Sir Barry Curtis has taken. Shortly we will have this sort of legislation being debated before many select committees, and we will have a chance to revisit that original legislation. It will be interesting to see how Tim Barnett votes for this legislation. I suspect he will probably go through the Ayes lobby with the Labour caucus. I hope he takes a call. George Hawkins and Tim Barnett should stand in Parliament and admit they got it wrong, like many, many New Zealanders said at the last election.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you are aware that New Zealand First will be taking a split call?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will give you a bell at 4 minutes.

Thank you. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say right from the outset that we will support this bill going to a select committee. Again, I will comment on the original legislation that has led to this bill coming before the House at this time. I can recall that three New Zealand First MPs, two of whom were list MPs from South Auckland, stood in this House to oppose that legislation, for the very reasons that previous speakers have talked about. Although I commend the Manukau City Council for sponsoring this bill, I find it very ironical that it asked one of the very members who supported the original legislation to bring this bill to the House on its behalf. The three New Zealand First MPs who opposed the legislation at the time were not even asked to consider this bill.

In spite of that, as a ratepayer and resident of Manukau City, I support the bill. It is certainly a reflection of just how wrong the original legislation was. I can recall speakers who supported the original legislation saying that it would bring safety to those who chose to enter that particular industry. I ask those members just how much safety the legislation brought to the two young ladies who, since its passing, have lost their lives. I think this bill will certainly go some way towards addressing that issue.

The bill recognises that street prostitution is not conducive to any of the aims of the Prostitution Reform Act, which was sold and debated on the basis of safeguarding the health and safety of sex workers and of limiting the age of sex workers to 18 years and over. This bill recognises the impact of street prostitution on local residents and business owners, and the negative effect it has on the community.

Each community and local body has the responsibility of ensuring that the terms of the Act are implemented. I believe that this bill signals the difficulty that all local bodies—not only Manukau City—have in ensuring that the terms and intent of the Act are met. Although some of us have some concerns about parts of the bill, we believe that by referring it to a select committee we will give the opportunity to members of the wider community to make a contribution. It will also provide the opportunity for other local bodies to express their views, if they share a concern about this issue with Manukau City.

The Act has clearly failed to control street prostitution, and it provides no legal mechanism to do so. Manukau City should be applauded for taking the initiative to control behaviour that is having an adverse impact on the people of that city. The bill also provides the police with powers to request information, to issue instant fines, and to arrest and prosecute suspected offenders. Sadly, a lot of my relatives reside in the part of Manukau City that has been identified in some of the summaries of this bill, and I am sad to say that, unfortunately, some of my relatives are actually involved. It will be interesting to see the stance the Māori Party will take, if we take into consideration that its leader supported the original Prostitution Reform Bill. I will be very interested to see those members’ response to this particular bill.

I find myself in a somewhat unusual position at this moment. I have to congratulate the Hon David Carter on the speech he gave a few moments ago. He was absolutely correct; the Prostitution Reform Act is a disastrous piece of social legislation. That is what he said, and I agree with him one hundred percent. He went on to say that it is stupid law, and I agree with him one hundred percent. He then went on to blame the abstention of Mr Choudhary, I believe, for the law being passed. But the actual facts of the matter are that six out of the 27 National MPs voted for the Prostitution Reform Act—six out of 27. Over 10 percent of the total vote cast in this House for that legislation was cast by National MPs—and now they have a guilt complex.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Get on to the subject; talk about now.

Oh, the new boys on the block are saying that it is nothing to do with them. Well, I tell those honourable members that their leader voted for the Prostitution Reform Act. Now they sit there and through David Carter they say that it is disastrous legislation. Six out of 27 National MPs voted for the legislation they are now complaining about, but from the word go they were told that the Prostitution Reform Act would expand the industry, legally and illegally. They were told there would be more street prostitution as a result of that Act, and that there would be more children involved. It is a sad testimony for this country that we have child prostitutes, right now as we speak—and there has not been one arrest. We have taken the police out of the equation and now it is open slather. I say to those members that it is no good sitting here. As the honourable member David Carter has said, it was naive of six National members to have voted for the bill—including the honourable Don Brash.

I have some sympathy for the National Party, I have to be honest. First of all, I do not know how Winston Peters convinced its members to ask all those patsy questions, when in return he has smashed them round the block. It is really quite unfair. I will have to talk to my leader, and tell him he should not take patsy questions and knock them to all and sundry. But when those members show such naivety as they have shown here in saying that this legislation is needed because the principal Act was disastrous, I have to tell them to think again. They should think who the dickens they represent when they come to this Parliament. They represent law-abiding, decent people.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: About time you retired.

It is no good Tau Henare’s shouting his head off. He knows two-thirds of nothing. What he knows about this legislation we could write in block capitals on a postage stamp.

Mr Choudhary abstained from voting—and it is unfortunate he did—on the principal legislation; otherwise we would not have to be dealing with this bill tonight, I suspect. But we are dealing with it, and I compliment the Manukau City Council on saying that it has a problem and that it wants to address it. I say to members that, sooner rather than later, this sort of legislation—assuming it is passed, and I think it will be—will be taken up by other local authorities elsewhere in this country. That cannot come before time, because people involved in the prostitution industry are destroying their lives.

I know that the Greens look at me in disgust as I speak, but if the Greens could have their way they would have people referred to a brothel-owner from Work and Income. They will oppose this legislation. They see prostitution as a legitimate job for young women to go into. If the Greens had their way, they would have Work and Income refer—

💬 Sue Bradford: No way!

Oh, “No way!”, the member yells. Yet she says that she wants to legitimise prostitution—

💬 Sue Bradford: Decriminalise it.

PETER BROWN:—or rather decriminalise it. I can say that the day of the passing of the Prostitution Reform Act was a sad day for New Zealand. In that legislation, as I recall, there is provision for a review in 5 years. I say to the honourable Tim Barnett, and I know he is an honourable man, that he should bring that review forward. He has the clout to do it. He should bring it forward. [Interruption] Oh, United Future wants to bring it forward. There we are; the member has been listening to New Zealand First. We want to bring the review forward now. Let us have the whole thing thrashed out and looked at, because 5 years is too long to wait.

Right from the outset I want to make it very clear that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. We think it is a disgrace that the Manukau City Council, which is often socially progressive on other issues, should scapegoat sex workers in this way and try to unilaterally reverse the intention of legislation passed in this House. In 2003 the Prostitution Reform Act was brought into being, with solid support from the Green Party. We believed, and we still do believe, that it was completely wrong to go on living with an archaic law that criminalised generations of sex workers, mainly women, for a victimless, so-called crime in the name of an antique morality shared by only some of the population. The Prostitution Reform Act decriminalised prostitution in this country, and although I recognise that both Parliament and the broader community are deeply divided on this issue, I believe that Manukau City Council needs to realise that the offence of soliciting is no longer on our law books.

I do not understand why Mayor Barry Curtis, who has been around the political world for quite some time, and others involved with putting this bill forward think that it is legally viable for a local authority to create its own criminal law for one small part of New Zealand. I guess at one level I would have to say “Good on you!” to Manukau City Council for being a legal rebel and trying to take this step towards establishing the independent republic of Manukau, but on every other count I think that the council is heading completely down the wrong track, and I do not think it will ever be really viable or desirable for Manukau City to go it alone as a sovereign entity.

Instead of putting forward this ill-advised bill, Manukau City should be looking at some of the reasons it continues to face perceived problems with street prostitution. Following the introduction of the Prostitution Reform Act, the council, along with councils in places like Christchurch and Hamilton, took the unfortunate step of passing a by-law that effectively prohibited small owner-operated brothels from functioning—again flying in the face of the provisions of the Act itself. That unlawful by-law places extreme restrictions on the location of small brothels in Manukau, thereby undermining one of the key objectives of the Prostitution Reform Act, which was to reduce street prostitution by encouraging sex workers to operate in the safety and discretion of brothels rather than out in public. Manukau City’s restrictions mean that many prostitutes have been unable to establish safe locations from which to work. Its by-law only keeps sex workers visible on the street and away from the increased health and security of brothels. If Manukau City Council thinks it has a problem with street prostitution, it is hoist on its own petard, and I hope that the court action that is coming up will mean that its dubious by-law on brothel location will bite the legal dust before long.

As I said earlier, the council’s latest legislative effort before us today also flies in the face of the original Prostitution Reform Act, because it is not just about controlling street prostitution but also aims to prohibit soliciting in all public places except brothels—which would impose severe criminal sanctions on both sex workers and their clients. For example, a sex worker and a potential customer arranging a transaction in a pub would be rendered criminal by the bill. As if that is not bad enough, clause 8 of the bill, if enacted, would also give the police authority to engage in entrapment exercises—for example, by having officers pose as prostitutes and effectively entice members of the public into what would be a criminal offence under this bill.

It is outrageous that the council has even conceived of this giant step backwards, not just in terms of prostitution law reform but also with regard to basic civil rights. Indeed, the bill overall offends against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, as I think even the Hon George Hawkins has acknowledged. Not only clause 8 but also clause 12 proposes unreasonably to restrict within Manukau City the rights to freedom of association, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly that are all affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Through clause 12, the police are given the power to require a person suspected of an offence under the bill to provide the name, address, and whereabouts of anyone else connected in any way with an alleged offence. That falls foul of section 23 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which gives people suspected of an offence the right to refrain from making a statement—one of the most fundamental safeguards of individual rights within our country’s criminal justice system.

Beyond all the legal problems with the bill before us tonight, there is also the question of what is actually going on, on the streets of Manukau City. It is apparent from recent media and police reports that youth gang violence is seen as a much bigger problem at the moment than street prostitution. Will councils suddenly produce a bill to try to deal with that problem in a similar way, rather than deal with the real causes like poverty, poor health, poor education, and social alienation? Manukau has far bigger issues at the moment than the offence caused to some citizens by the presence of visible sex workers on the streets. Assaults on shop owners, serious domestic violence, theft of all sorts, and assault are far more prevalent and serious crimes than those associated with a prostitute seeking and gaining customers. The police and social agencies already have their hands more than full in South Auckland. Recently there were an estimated 900 unallocated police files. I would question whether the hard-pressed force actually wants to spend its time chasing people down for soliciting or prostitution-related offences, when they are already totally unable to keep up with the existing workload.

Even if this bill somehow did get through, in the end it is unlikely to have any effect on street workers, anyway. Opponents of prostitution reform seem to forget that sex work has been around pretty much as long as humans have been, and that people worked the streets just as visibly, and in similar numbers, before decriminalisation ever happened. I would hate to see Manukau going back to the situation where not only street workers were subject to arrest and prosecution on a daily basis but also health workers, for example, could be prosecuted for giving out condoms or for facilitating other health and safety initiatives with local prostitutes.

And just what is the situation at Hunters Corner, which is the area Manukau City Council usually talks about in relation to the impact of street prostitution? The Prostitutes Collective in Auckland, which deals with sex workers all the time, believes that workers have become the scapegoat for a whole lot of other problems in that part of town, and for problems not of their making—for example, a drop in property values. In fact, the council needs to consider that other market forces may be driving property values down, in relation to a changing demographic of who is living in the area, and to the building of new shopping centres in South Auckland that has led to a decline in strip retail, with the subsequently empty shops being replaced with bars and gambling venues.

Who are the street workers at Hunters Corner? The latest figures show they comprise about 70 prostitutes, 60 of whom are Māori , nine Pasifika, and one Pākehā. That tells us quite a lot. On top of that, 50 percent of them, roughly, are transgender. I wonder how MPs here tonight—at least those from parties like Labour, the Māori Party, and others who believe in supporting the needs and rights of those most marginalised by reason of race, class, and gender—feel about supporting a law that proposes to harass and recriminalise that particular, very small group of people.

This Parliament changed the law on prostitution for good reason. Those of us who support reform do not want to see Manukau, or any part of Aotearoa, return to the inequities and dangers of the bad old days just because some councillors are responding to a moral panic. This bill is a gross overreaction to a problem that the Manukau City Council has partly created for itself. I urge the council to embrace the spirit of the Prostitution Reform Act, review its restrictive by-law on brothel location, and involve itself in the review process established under Part 4 of the Prostitution Reform Act. We wrote those review procedures into the legislation at the select committee, because we wanted all interested groups to be able to evaluate the effects of decriminalisation, and to develop positive responses to any problems that might become apparent. If Manukau City Council were serious about wanting to deal with the plight of Māori and Pasifika street workers, it would not be doing it through oppressive and legally dodgy bills like this; it would be proactively involved with the Prostitution Reform Act review, and it would work alongside relevant community groups, like the Prostitutes Collective, to resolve problems. I hope other MPs and parties here tonight will join the Green Party in consigning this reactionary, ill-judged bill to the dustbin of history, where it so rightly belongs.

Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Kia ora Pita Paraone! Hoi anō hei tīmata kōrero, me kōrero au ki taku whanaunga nei.

[Thank you Madam Speaker, and greetings to us all. And so as a starter, I should begin by addressing Peter Paraone, my relation before me.]

I would first like to pick up on a point made by Pita Paraone, who asked what our line on this bill was to be because Tariana Turia voted for the Prostitution Reform Bill. Tariana Turia voted for that bill because she believed there was a need to try to provide some kind of safety and security for those on the street. However, we do not support this bill for a whole lot of other reasons.

I am amazed at both the tenor and intent of the bill, which seems to be an extreme response in a very small area of the country to groups and individuals who are both small in number and very marginalised in our society. It targets the vulnerable and is a metaphorical pile-driver sent to crack a walnut. The bill makes it an offence to solicit for prostitution in a public place. It creates new infringement offences and, most important, it provides the police with powers that no police force anywhere in a civilised society should have.

Prior to the Prostitution Reform Act, street-based sex workers were subject to soliciting laws under the Summary Offences Act, the maximum penalty for which was a fine of $200. The reality was that they were shunted through the courts, and they quickly returned to the streets in order to make money to pay their fines. The convictions for soliciting made no impact whatsoever on the numbers of people working on the street. People just shifted to different doorways and waited for the police to calm down before moving back to their previous sites.

Enforcement has dropped significantly over the last 10 years, but when the police did one final raid while the Prostitution Reform Bill was before this House, most of those arrested were Māori and transgender sex workers. Street-based sex workers throughout New Zealand are mainly Māori and working-class, mothers, and transgender, and we want to ensure that they are not subjected to the punitive measures outlined in this bill.

We know that during the course of their work, Prostitutes Collective workers encountered, on average, 25 of these sex workers throughout South Auckland on mainly Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. The Prostitutes Collective tells us that the actual numbers of street-based sex workers overall are very, very small, not only in Manukau but throughout the country. To bring in a bill to try to crush just those in Manukau simply ain’t going to do the business.

Most street-based sex workers are over the age of 25, although a study made in Christchurch suggests that most of them started at a relatively young age. Many of those people have worked the streets for a number of years, and are very stable and unlikely to create problems in respect of public nuisance, etc. Reintroducing penalties in relation to street-based sex workers will not make any difference whatsoever, and the statistics prove this in respect of the numbers of people engaged in sex work. It will, though, result in those sex workers being fined large amounts of money—money that they will simply be unable to pay. That, of course, will result in their being further punished and criminalised for unpaid fines, which will only result in them getting community service or ending up in jail. Punitive actions are not the solution. They never have been.

Furthermore, the Māori Party is concerned that the definition of soliciting is very wide—that it will enable the police to act on a “perception from afar” basis that a person is actually soliciting, and those decisions will be subjective. Historically, sex workers have been inclined to plead guilty when confronted with charges, even when they are just passing through known street sites, and the Māori Party is worried that anyone who even looks the part, or who fits the profile, is likely to be implicated under the terms of this bill.

Furthermore, if the bill is passed because condoms and other safer-sex gear can be listed as evidence of soliciting, sex workers will stop carrying them. That is really dumb because the police actually tell sex workers that they are happy they are carrying them, because it means safe sex is going on between them and their clients.

Street-based sex workers will be less likely to report crimes against themselves for fear of prosecution under this legislation, so this bill will only drive street workers into situations where they lose contact with those who can help them, such as outreach workers. We do not deny that there are issues with noise, litter, arguments, and abuse, but laws already exist to control that kind of behaviour.

As for the police issue, we are also very concerned that, under clause 8, police are exempt from prosecution where the officer is acting under written instructions from a senior officer. That means, in simple terms, that if a cop has a note from a sergeant he or she can break the law to make an arrest. This is a dangerous precedent. While everybody may have all these other ideas about prostitution, sex work, etc., the clauses giving police wider powers will lead to sanctioning the commissioning of crimes to solve a crime. That is a very, very dangerous precedent, and that is another reason why this bill should not go through.

The powers of the police under this bill are like those the United States is using to apprehend and jail suspects in Afghanistan and Iraq—on the basis that they have reasonable grounds to do so. Is Manukau City to become the new Guantanamo Bay? When the police cells in Manukau City fill, and we have all heard about the renditioning that goes on—the United States flies suspects all around the world to put them into its own private jails—will New Zealand’s version of renditioning mean that those picked up in Manukau City will be shunted off to other towns and cities in Aotearoa, as the United States does with suspects all over Europe? Will Manukau City lead the moral local body charge against a group in our society that is both vulnerable and small in number?

We have had advice from the streets that many positives have come from the Prostitution Reform Act, but we fail to see anything positive at all coming out of this bill. In conclusion, I just note how tolerant this House has been of the high level of soliciting and related nuisance-type behaviour carried out by those seeking support for this bill. The Māori Party opposes this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou katoa.

United Future will be voting in favour of this bill, at least for its first reading. I want to begin by extending my congratulations to Sir Barry Curtis and the members of the Manukau City Council for actually sitting down and asking some serious questions about the problem of soliciting for prostitution that is occurring on a wide scale within that city, involving many people under 18 years of age. The council has, I think, at least partly, come up with the right solution to that problem—namely, that the best way to eliminate soliciting on the streets of Manukau City, or of any other city, is to fine the client of the prostitute. That is one of the things this bill provides.

People’s memories are very, very short when it comes to the Prostitution Reform Act, which United Future opposed and, in the course of that legislation through the House, predicted it would not work and would result in exploitation on our streets with the kind of unseemly activity that prostitution involves. During the election campaign, for example, in one of the leaders’ debates between Helen Clark and Don Brash, Don Brash was asked the direct question: “Why did you vote for the Prostitution Reform Act?”. His response was that when he learnt that under the old law of New Zealand a prostitute who solicited on the streets got fined but the client of the prostitute escaped scot-free, he decided that that was fundamentally unjust, sexist, and discriminatory and that he would therefore vote for the bill.

He conveniently, or otherwise, forgot that Dianne Yates of the Labour Party had introduced an amendment during the course of that legislation proposing to do what Sweden has done. In Sweden, it was the Swedish women—45 percent of the Swedish Parliament—who came up with the idea, and said: “Why don’t we just reverse that? Why don’t we let the prostitute, who is normally a woman, do her bit. Furthermore, why don’t we get some financial assistance to her so that she can get out of this industry and into something more wholesome and safe. And why don’t we actually put a fine on the client, who is normally a male?” Dianne Yates proposed that amendment here. I would have thought that that was the true feminist position, one that would be truly in the interests of the women of this country. But, no, apart from United Future members and literally two or three others, Dianne Yates’ amendment was voted down—and most of the women in this Parliament joined in voting it down. People have very short memories, because that actually was the answer to the dilemma that Don Brash had proposed in his own mind.

So I think that we should pass the first reading of this bill tonight and let it go off to the select committee, and I suggest when it gets there that the committee once again looks at what has happened in Sweden, followed by Denmark, followed by Norway, and now followed by France. All of those countries have adopted the Swedish model. As a result they have no street soliciting. Those societies—again, particularly led by the women—have made up their minds to say: “Can’t we have a vision for a nation that has no prostitutes on the streets? How do we get rid of them? We actually criminalise the client.” I think, with respect, that Hone Harawira completely missed this point in his speech. The solution that Sir Barry Curtis and his councillors have come up with is partly right. We want to actually see the end of soliciting. Why do we not fine the client?

I want to make a couple of other comments. Somebody said that the Prostitution Reform Act was passed by this Parliament to improve the safety of sex workers. Yeah, right! By definition prostitution is unsafe. No bill passed by this Parliament can sanitise or remove that reality. To prove the point, since that Act was passed two young prostitutes are dead. I think it is time we faced up to this problem honestly, and said: “Let’s actually bring it to an end; this is not something that our country needs. We can do without it, and our society can do without it.”

I mention one other point. In the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour-led Government and United Future, provision has been made for a review to be undertaken of the Prostitution Reform Act to address three issues that are of great concern in Manukau, in Christchurch, and in a number of other places throughout the country. The first issue in that Act is street soliciting. The second issue is the question of under-age sex. From memory, two or three brothel owners have been prosecuted in our courts for employing prostitutes who are under 18 years of age. But do members know that since that Act was passed not one single prosecution has been taken to our courts of the hundreds of people to whom who those under-age prostitutes provided their services? All of those hundreds of people broke the law of this land—every single one of them. Not one of them has been prosecuted. No questions have been asked. We are continuing down the same old blind, bigoted way of always blaming the prostitute and always letting the client off. We need to stop that. We need to get real and say that we do not want people selling sex on our streets. Let us fix that by saying: “If you want to go on the streets and buy sex, then you’re going to face a fine.” Under the bill, by the way, it can be as much as 10 grand—and boy, I tell members that this bill will actually fix soliciting in Manukau City!

The bill may not be perfect—bills on their first reading seldom are—but let it at least go through to a select committee so we can actually deal with the issues with, I hope, some sanity, balance, and fairness and try to come up with something that will improve the situation in Manukau City for the people of Manukau City. It is their bill, and I tell Sue Bradford that there is nothing unilateral about this bill. Manukau City is asking Parliament to pass a law. It is for us to decide whether we want to come to the assistance of the people of Manukau, or simply, as it were, turn, cross the street, and go past on the other side.

I seek the leave of the House to take a brief call on the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member has sought leave of the House to have a call. Is there any objection? There is not. Is this a 5-minute call?

Yes, but it will not be as long as that. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I thank my colleagues for their generosity. I want to make a few brief comments.

I have grave concerns about the content of the bill. I respect the intent and the sincerity, genuine I believe, of Sir Barry Curtis and the people of Manukau City, whom he represents as mayor, in seeking to have this matter dealt with. However, I believe that some of what is in the bill is completely erroneous. The hysteria that has gone on this evening in some of the speeches regarding the Prostitution Reform Act is just that—hysteria. Some of those issues would not have come to light if we had not gone down that track. I believe we are able to chuck out or address many, if not all, of the issues in this bill, because of what is happening already—for example, the review that is already occurring of the Prostitution Reform Act as a result of it, and other such matters.

I should declare that I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I almost welcome the opportunity to rubbish a lot of what is in the bill. However, I do maintain that I uphold the right of Manukau City and of Sir Barry in generously bringing the bill forward and using a parliamentary process—almost mischievously in a sense, but, nevertheless, it is a right and correct use of the process. So I look forward to the bill coming before the select committee. I will give the bill extraordinarily close scrutiny and very deep questioning, for I, as most members of this Parliament know, have a very close association with the sex industry.

I do believe that street soliciting is the more dangerous of the prostitution activities that occur, and I would like nothing more than to see people not necessarily need to be in the situation of street work. That is why I wonder where that council has been. This has not been a problem of recent occurrence but one of some history. So where are the initiatives to get those people into more desirable work and the opportunities for it, perhaps, so as to get them out of the horrible rut they can sometimes be in?

I ask members not to remain ignorant to the goodness of what the Prostitution Reform Act provided for this country. Yes, the matters are distasteful, but we should face them, as we are, responsibly. I do believe that is what the Act provided.

This bill is a local bill. My colleague George Hawkins has quite rightly, as a local member, brought it forward on behalf of the Manukau City Council. That is why I am happy to support the referral of the bill to the select committee. I certainly cannot promise that I will support it beyond there.

I thank all members here tonight for what has been a very interesting debate. There are strongly held views on this matter, just as there were a few years ago when the original legislation came before the House. I must say, and I concede straight away, that David Carter seemed to blame me for the bill, although he is far more expert on the matter of prostitution than I am. However—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Spell it out!

That member may also be more expert than me; I do not know about that.

I have not heard anyone tonight invite these street workers into his or her town. I have not heard people say that that is a great idea and they should have them in their towns. Manukau is a young city. It has many problems, and it tries to deal with them. It tries to deal with ill health and with the problems associated with growing up in such a young city. It does some tremendous work for its citizens. The city’s motivation is good.

I ask everyone to vote for the bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, so that these things can be questioned. I know that some people may vote for the referral of the bill to the committee and that their support may end there. However, many Government members are supporting its referral to the select committee to enable wider public debate to inform the work of the Prostitution Law Review Committee.

It does not matter that the Manukau City Council’s motivation may, in the eyes of some people, be wrong. What is important is that the council has its day before the select committee. I dare say there will be other councils appearing at the committee. If Manukau City Council has a fault it is that it cares too much; it is a city council that is concerned about all its citizens. Earlier tonight we sent a bill that deals with graffiti to a select committee. What we are really hearing tonight is that a council is turning to its Parliament and saying that it wants to be given some help. I do not think there is anything wrong in doing that. In fact, I am quite keen to see the bill go to the select committee. I may not be a person who thinks this bill is perhaps the best solution to the problem, but it is Manukau City’s solution and the council wants it to be tested by this Parliament.

This issue may be offensive to many people. It may be undesirable that condoms are being left in school grounds. I think that is deplorable; I think it is dangerous for young kids. I think about the people who have to clean away condoms from their shopfronts before opening for business. That is not desirable. No one likes that. Manukau is responding to the call of its population. I hope that people will vote for the bill to go to the select committee.