Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill

on behalf of H V Ross Robertson (Labour—Manukau East): I move, That the House take note of the interim report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. An interim report, you may well ask? The Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 8 September 2010. It is now 29 February 2012. So what is this “interim” report all about? Well, this local bill sponsored by Ross Robertson, as I have just said, first originated from George Hawkins some time ago. Mr Robertson took over the bill. It went to the select committee. It has been at the select committee, but very little has happened, except in the meantime the Manukau City Council has gone out of existence. It has now been taken over by the Auckland Council. So the Manukau City Council does not now exist.

What did it want to do? The Manukau City Council wanted to be able to make bylaws prohibiting the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services in specified public places in Manukau City. As that city council no longer exists, what was going to happen? The committee received a submission from the Auckland Council, the new super-city council, advising our committee that it intended to replace the Manukau City Council as the bill’s promoter. The Auckland Council notified us that it was going to provide amendments to make it now the promoter of this bill. It also wanted to change the definition of “district” within the bill. It notified the public of these proposed amendments, and on 5 September 2011 the council sent its amendments to the committee for consideration. At the meeting just before Christmas, it was agreed to consider those amendments to the original bill, because the amendments proposed by the council could apply to a much wider area than had previously been governed by the Manukau City Council, and therefore they affected many, many more people than the original bill did. It was decided by the committee that further submissions would then be called on the bill and on the amendments.

So what is this report all about? It is to tell you just that. That is what the committee is going to do. We make no comment on what might come from those submissions, but the committee will now look at the further submissions and look closely at the council’s amendments.

As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I rise to speak to this interim report on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. As you have heard from the Hon Annette King, the local bill was sponsored by Ross Robertson, and its purpose was to authorise the Manukau City Council to make bylaws prohibiting the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services in specified public places in Manukau City. It was referred to us, but while we were dealing with the bill, the Manukau City Council was disestablished, and the Auckland Council has now taken over that bill.

I just would like to make a little comment about the amendment that the Auckland Council has put forward. It is amendment 194, and it just makes a couple of very simple amendments. It omits the name “Manukau City Council” and replaces it with “Auckland Council” both in the title of the bill and in the definition of “district”. As the Hon Annette King said, the Auckland Council has notified the public. It has notified the public through the newspapers, through writing to members of Parliament and interested parties, and by putting a public viewing of the amendment in the courts and in the libraries and council service centres. The new Local Government and Environment Committee, which sat on 21 December, agreed to ask for more submissions on the amendment and the bill to make sure that everybody had been consulted, and those submissions close today. So far we have received 210 submissions, mostly from the Auckland area, with 51 people wanting to appear before the committee.

I would just like to note that since the opening of submissions, there has been a lot of interest in this bill, and other councils in areas across New Zealand have expressed a desire to have similar legislation in their areas. The Local Government and Environment Committee is looking forward to working on the Auckland Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill, and we expect to be hearing submissions in Auckland in the near future. Thank you.

I note the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee. I rise to take this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Green Party to say that the original bill, the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill, which was just in respect of Manukau City, was repugnant and we think it is unfortunate that the select committee did not take this opportunity to kill the bill. We furthermore are extremely concerned about the fact that this bill is going to undermine the 2003 Prostitution Reform Act. We think it is unfortunate that Auckland Council is seeking to take over as the promoter of this bill.

I might just go ahead and outline what our concerns are about the bill, which is that it attacks the most vulnerable in society. It will not have the consequences that are intended. It is undermining an Act that was passed by this House in 2003. It runs the risk of driving street prostitution underground. It puts the safety and health of sex workers at risk. It means that street-based sex workers will be less likely to report violence against them to the police. It sets a dangerous precedent by empowering a local council—or a super-city council, now—to effectively create its own criminal law that would criminalise in one geographical area behaviour that exists throughout New Zealand. We are really concerned that it does not work towards solving the identified problems, and—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What?

Well, I would say that the Green Party certainly will not commend this bill, but it is not a debate on the bill, so we will just say that the Green Party has—[Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Look, members should not engage in discussion across the Chamber. Interjections should be rare and reasonable. The member is on her feet and I will not have cross discussions going on.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude by saying that the Green Party has significant concerns about the bill and we hope that it does not, in fact, pass into law. Thank you.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak for the first time on behalf of New Zealand First on this Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee report considers that this bill should give the Auckland Council a wider jurisdiction under this bill beyond the South Auckland boundary.

As a local resident of South Auckland—to be specific, Ōtāhuhu—I say that this bill and its crux deserve a serious consideration. Prostitution not only exists on Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe; it is being solicited in many parts of South Auckland. In Ōtāhuhu you only have to drive through Atkinson Avenue or sometimes even through Great South Road in Manurewa to be able to experience what actually is happening there. The whole place transforms from a bustling commercial and schooling district into an area of pick-ups and drop-offs for prostitutes.

Under the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 prostitution became decriminalised. Sadly, there will always be a market in the sex industry for prostitution, and it does not help when jobs are scarce—contrary to what the Prime Minister and his Minister for Social Development may think. I would be surprised if the Government supports this bill, considering its current welfare reforms. It opposes the market for job opportunities, does it not?

New Zealand First never supported the Prostitution Reform Act in 2003. However, since it is part of legislation, we must consider the part of this bill that addresses many important issues concerning soliciting prostitution in public areas. Children should not be exposed to used condoms on their walks to school or question the openness of sex being available on every corner of their shopping centres. Parents should not have to explain to their kids why there is paraphernalia dumped in public parks, on beaches, and in and around the local schools and church boundaries. Business owners, local residents, and local communities should not have to clean up the mess the next morning.

Prostitution should have never been so openly accepted with the Prostitution Reform Act 2003. We are now dealing with the consequences of this, and here is the message we are sending to our future generations: it is all right to be openly involved in the openness of sexual activity in exchange for money. It is a career path that children can take and it is being publicly displayed and accepted to practise in our communities. New Zealand is a country that allows for the mixing of family environments and the sexual activity of prostitution. Local businesses, be they small or large, have to accept that sex work is happening on their doorsteps and deal with the problems the next morning.

Thorough scrutiny of this bill is imperative, so that New Zealand communities can feel comfortable and raise our families and our children, and take part in these economies. It allows for our public environment to be protected against the danger of sex work. We need to feel safe in our own communities and we need to recognise the importance of raising our children in an environment where they can dream beyond the prospects of standing at shop corners.

New Zealand First acknowledges that the bill needs to be looked at seriously, and worked on especially in regard to enforcement. It seems that the police can actually arrest under suspicion of prostitution, and enforce a fine of up to $2,000, as per clause 13 of the bill. Clause 13 of the bill gives a constable a power to arrest without a warrant “a person who the constable has good cause to suspect has committed an offence …”. That is rather grey. If they accuse a local contingent who is waiting for the bus or taxi, or somebody from the family to pick them up, they are opening themselves up to come seriously under fire.

Even with this, I am pleased to say that New Zealand First supports the bill and commends the sponsor who brought it to the attention of the House. Thank you.