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

on behalf of Su’a William Sio (Labour—Māngere): I move, That the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill be now read a second time. This bill has a long history—a very, very long gestation, indeed. On 22 November 2005 the former member of Parliament for Manurewa the Hon George Hawkins introduced the first of these bills. It was the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill. It was introduced in the 48th Parliament. The bill provided for local control over street prostitution in Manukau City. On 7 December 2005 it was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. At the time of its introduction the Hon George Hawkins outlined what he said were the local problems relating to street prostitution in the areas of Hunter’s Corner, Papatoetoe; the Ōtara town centre; and the Great South Road, Manurewa. They were concerned as a local council about the growing number of sex workers soliciting on the street. It was not a bill—and never was—about the legality of prostitution. That bill had been passed some time earlier, so it had nothing to do with legalisation or decriminalisation of prostitution in New Zealand.

So 10 years on—from 2005 until now—we are debating today the reading of a second bill to deal with this issue. I need to tell those who are listening that so much time has gone into this issue—probably more time at a select committee on a local bill than at any time in the history of this Parliament. We have had report after report. We have had evidence backwards and forwards, legal opinions given, the evidence of that legal opinion given, and another legal opinion given. And in the meantime, throughout this, the Manukau City Council disappeared altogether and was replaced by a super-city.

The first select committee report on the first bill recommended that the bill not proceed, and that it be voted down at the second reading. It was voted down by the select committee on the grounds that having a local law different from national law in respect of prostitution was unworkable. Seven members of that original committee have now left this House. Those left are Pita Paraone, the Hon Nick Smith, and Metiria Turei.

Then on 11 October 2006 we had that second reading. It was voted down by 46 votes to 73. But I have to tell the House it did not deter the Hon George Hawkins. He came back with another local bill, the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill, and on 20 August 2010, now the 49th Parliament, this bill was introduced. This bill in clause 3 authorises the council “to make bylaws specifying places in the district where the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services may not occur otherwise than in a brothel or a small owner-operated brothel.” This bill went back to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

In the 2011 election George Hawkins retired and the bill was then picked up in the 50th Parliament by the former member for Manukau East Ross Robertson. I sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee for 2 years and I need to tell members of this House that we gave this bill serious consideration. Once again, we heard evidence, we reheard evidence, and we sought legal advice and advice from the Auckland Council.

By the end of 2014, before the election, the committee had come to the conclusion that the bill was not needed. That was the conclusion of the committee. We had looked at the evidence; that was the decision. And it was the decision for the following two reasons. Auckland City, we were told by all the opinions we got, could already make a by-law. It did not need this House to make a by-law for it. It could make a by-law to control street prostitution. We did not need to waste the time of this Parliament making a by-law.

The second reason was that we knew and heard that lining up behind this Auckland City were a whole lot of councils wanting their by-law. So we could in theory have up to 70 councils coming wanting their particular by-law around street prostitution. We said that this was a nonsense. We could not have a whole lot of local bills clogging up this Parliament when there was the ability for Auckland City to make a by-law, and it ought to get on with it. Certainly, Christchurch was one of the first that was lining up but there were others around New Zealand. Unfortunately, the bill was not concluded before the House rose for the last election.

So, finally, we get to the 51st Parliament and this bill, now in its fourth Parliament, has reached this point today. We think it is time to stop after 10 years of Parliament’s time and money and say to the Auckland Council: “Pass a by-law, because you can. If that is what Auckland wants to do, just get on with the job.” The select committee recommends that this bill not be passed and that we conclude this bill here at the second reading, as we did with the first bill that the Hon George Hawkins introduced way back in 2005.

Can I just say in conclusion that I want to thank the committees that have worked on this bill. I say to the people of Auckland and the councils that have been involved that it was taken very seriously. We looked at all the issues. We believe that we have come up with the right solution. Also, I want to thank the three members who have promoted this bill—as good members would promote a local bill—George Hawkins, Ross Robertson, and Su’a William Sio, who have faithfully brought this bill and argued it for their local community. I know that they will be disappointed that it has not proceeded but they also understand and know that Auckland City can go ahead tomorrow if it wishes and prepare a by-law—

💬 Hon David Parker: Some councils have.

—and, in fact, Hamilton is one of those that has, so we know that it is possible. In fact, some of those that have joined the super-city had already created their own by-laws.

So, I say to those former members who may be missing, thank you for your hard work but this is going to, hopefully, be the end of this bill and the end of the time of this Parliament dealing with it.

I rise to speak in the second reading of the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill in my capacity as the current chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I want to acknowledge and thank the Hon Annette King for her very detailed, thoughtful, and good analysis of the history of this piece of legislation and its long march and journey through the Parliament of New Zealand. I think the Hon Annette King made a very good point about now being the time for Parliament to bring this matter to an end and to encourage and, in fact, invite the current Auckland Council, if it wishes, to pass the by-law that it so clearly can, should it wish to do so.

About 25 years ago I was manager of a business called Protector Safety. It had a branch in Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe in Manukau City as it was then. I can assure members that even that long ago we as local business people were having to contend with the issues of street prostitution and particularly the issues that related to tidying up the mess that was there every morning as we opened up the business for a day’s trading. We had to sort of clear away the goings-on from the night before. So I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the business folk of Hunters Corner and other parts of South Auckland where street prostitution has been, without doubt, an ongoing issue for many, many years.

But, as the Hon Annette King has so clearly pointed out, the reality is that after years of deliberation, after years of getting advice, after years of consultation, and after years of hearing from every kind of expert possible on these matters, we as a committee came to the very clear decision and the conclusion that, in fact, Auckland Council already has the power to create a by-law should it so wish. Indeed, other councils around the country have done so—Hamilton City Council has been mentioned—and before the amalgamation of the Auckland super-city, Rodney District Council had in fact passed its own legislation, which under the rules of amalgamation and the way Auckland City has been set up actually stand in place today.

The Local Government and Environment Committee concluded that it was absolutely possible for Auckland Council to regulate street prostitution should it so wish, and that if it were to do so, it would not be in any kind of contravention of, or inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or indeed the Prostitution Reform Act, which has been cited as a reason by those people who would want this Parliament to make special legislation on this matter. They think that it may in some way be an inhibitor or a roadblock. In fact, it is not; the advice we have had is very clear that it is not. It is very possible for Auckland City to do so, if it wishes, in a way that is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and not inconsistent with the Prostitution Reform Act.

The Local Government Act 2002 specifically allows local authorities to make by-laws to protect the public from nuisance; protect, promote, and maintain public health and safety; minimise potential for offensive behaviour in public; and regulate trading in public places. Under each of those heads, there is more than sufficient scope for Auckland City, should it wish, to pursue a by-law in this area. In fact, this very day, representatives of Auckland Council appeared before the Health Committee to tell us about by-laws it had made to regulate solaria and sunbed operations in Auckland City. It strikes me that Auckland City has the capacity—and, in fact, the history—to regulate by by-laws all manner of behaviour and business and human activity. It seems to be able to do it with great gusto and great enthusiasm on a whole range of other subjects. Why it has chosen not to do so on this matter defies my understanding.

Many of the complaints about street prostitution relate specifically to issues relating to noise, to littering, and to slow-moving vehicles, which is usually referred to as kerbcrawling, and, of course, they relate to issues relating to disorderly behaviour. These are actually all matters that are able to be dealt with under the existing by-laws that the Auckland Council has available to it.

After all this time, after all this history, the select committee of the 51st Parliament came to a unanimous conclusion that this bill should not be passed. The Hon Annette King made the very good point that if that was not the case and, in fact, if this Parliament did pass this piece of local legislation, then we would be inundated with requests from all other local territorial authorities seeking us to pass the same type of legislation in a way that I think would be a gross misuse of this Parliament’s time and resources, particularly given that the opportunity for by-laws already exists.

So we come now to the 51st Parliament, nearly 10 years on from the time when the first iteration of this bill was introduced by the Hon George Hawkins, all those years ago. It is time, I think, for this House to support the recommendations of the 51st Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Committee, and support the recommendation of the committee, passed unanimously, that this bill not proceed. That is the course of action that I commend to the House, and I do so with confidence that it will be supported by the vast majority of members across the House. I commend the committee’s report and its recommendation to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to disagree with both previous speakers. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to explain why we disagree. It is not that we do not understand. It is not that we do not understand the advice that was given to the Local Government and Environment Committee way back in 2005 and 2006, nor is it that we do not understand the advice that was given to the select committee only last year. We understand that we had a member on that select committee, Andrew Williams. However, it is our view—it is our view—that the people of Manukau have been let down by this Parliament. It is our view that the select committee could have done more. Although it might have recommended that this bill not go forward, it could have made other recommendations.

I note very clearly that the two previous speakers have relied on advice that Auckland Council can already create a by-law, and that is true. That is absolutely true. As a person who was part of the submission process with regard to the Rodney District Council and the laws and the by-laws that were created then to create areas where this industry could do its business without interfering with the everyday lives of the other citizens in that area, I know that what Mr Simpson has said is true. The Rodney District Council had very strong laws. Actually, of all the amalgamated councils, the Rodney District Council had the most conservative by-laws around this particular industry. It was threatened on several occasions with being taken to court because it wanted to protect and fit within the current legislation, but it also wanted to make sure that its citizens, who pay the rates in that area, had a level of protection. So we created those by-laws. And then the Rodney District Council was absorbed into the super-city of Auckland and, because the super-city of Auckland’s absorption has not worked as quickly as perhaps was imagined, those by-laws still stand in just the 46 percent of the land mass of Auckland that was Rodney District.

However, it is a cop-out, quite frankly, to rely on what is a true statement—a theoretically true statement—that a by-law can be created, because it absolutely can be. But then it must be enforced. I think the other thing too that is interesting about that is that as a member of the Rodney Local Board, I knew that the by-laws staff had to go around every local board, once we had this amalgamation of the super-city, and had to ask about prostitution as a business and what sorts of controls we would want to put in place to flatten out the by-laws across the whole of Auckland. And there is one of your other things—I assume that the select committee had a briefing on the fact that this is now about flattening out by-laws across the whole of Auckland. Any by-law created or any issue that you might have in what is now Manukau City inside the super-city would actually have to be assumed across the whole of the city.

But what was interesting about that consultation was that the Auckland Council staff told local board members: “You don’t need to create a by-law. You don’t need to create a by-law because they are hawkers, so really this is just about hawking. So we can just use the current by-law”—which is a hawking by-law—“and then we can actually go and issue these people with a ticket.” Let us just have a think about the practicalities of that. What has just been said is that this bill wastes 10 years of this Parliament’s time, but this is a real issue to real people who are just trying to go about their daily lives. So, apparently, there is a hawking by-law already on the books and we can send out by-laws officers at 3 o’clock in the morning, 4 o’clock in the morning—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise to the member for those members’ rudeness. Thank you.

That is all right, Mr Assistant Speaker. We can send by-laws officers at 4 o’clock in the morning to go and give a ticket—to go and fine the prostitutes who are outside these people’s houses, leaving used condoms up on their doors, and abusing them when the resident of the property wishes to get some sleep. Apparently—and it is a truism—we can send out a by-laws officer and give the prostitutes a ticket. How does Mr Simpson think that is going to go down?

It is all very well and good to say: “You can.” and it is all very well and good to say that you have the ability to, but it is another thing completely to say how that will take place. How? You can, but how do you do it? There is absolutely no practical thought inside the select committee’s response to this bill. In all three parliaments that dealt with this matter over the 10 years, where was the will to actually sort this out for the people of New Zealand? Where was the will to address street prostitution? It is not only the residents who are being affected by it, but what about the under-age trafficking that is now taking place on the streets? What about that part, which some sort of legislation in this House might have addressed?

💬 Hon David Parker: We’ve already got it. Just go to the police.

So, here we go—we have got it again. We are going to leave it to the people on the street to have to deal with it. This Parliament brought in a law—[Interruption]; and those gentlemen are apparently very supportive of it—and then it dumped it out there for the people of New Zealand to deal with. When the people of New Zealand come back to their Parliament and say: “Something’s wrong with it and we would like Parliament’s assistance to actually fix it.”, apparently it is in the too-hard basket. Apparently, it is 10 years of wasted time, which is what the two speakers before me said.

These are citizens of New Zealand, who pay our wages, who have come to this Parliament and said that something is wrong with a piece of legislation. They are not asking for that legislation to be overturned—nobody here is. What they are asking for is recognition of a problem and for us to come up with a solution, and this House is supposed to be here for them.

So although this bill will fail, New Zealand First will support it. We will support it because it actually is an issue that this House needs to address. We—

💬 Hon Member: Actually, it’ll end up wasting the House’s time.

It needs to be addressed. We refuse to actually slap these citizens in the face and say: “It wasn’t important enough. We decided not to put any other solution in here or any other recommendation in here. We decided to just say it was 10 years of our time. Too bad. Go away and deal with it yourself. Ring a by-laws officer at 3 in the morning. Call a police officer and go into court, and take all that time out of your day and your life because this Government and this Parliament decide that it is not worth our time.”

It is—in contrast with the previous speaker, Tracey Martin—with a certain amount of relief that I rise to take a call on this bill, the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. This is the second time that legislation like this has come before this Parliament. As has been very well outlined by Annette King earlier, there has been 10 years of consideration of the detail of this issue. This Parliament has spent a huge amount of time listening to the community and considering these issues. It has not in any way, as the previous speaker may have suggested, been a flippant dismissal of the concerns of the community. There has been a rigorous process of looking at the appropriate role for responding to this problem. My understanding is that the Local Government and Environment Committee has possibly spent more time on this issue than it has on pretty much any other piece of legislation in recent years. This has not been a flippant dismissal.

The Green Party was on the committee and supports the unanimous decision of that committee for this bill not to proceed further. I am also aware that some people will be really unhappy with this recommendation. I went and met with some people at the committee and we heard the submissions. I have real empathy for their situation. We were told of businesses losing money, residents losing sleep, parents fearing their children were having to see and hear things that children should be protected from. I absolutely believe that they are valid concerns. This is a problem that needs a solution. I sincerely wish to see those concerns resolved.

I would commend anyone who is listening to this debate to go and read the full report of the select committee to find out the detail of what we considered. It came down to whether legislation was the way to solve those concerns. It was the unanimous view of the committee that legislation is not going to solve this problem. The problem needs a solution, but legislation is not the answer. We listened and we really engaged, but, ultimately, our role is to consider whether legislation is the appropriate response and, in this case, whether a local bill that applies to only one area—albeit an area that covers a third of our population—is appropriate.

Local bills need to address local issues and not national issues. We heard previously that several other councils—in response to lobbying, I must admit, initiated by the Manukau city councillors—indicated that they may see this as an area of concern and want to have a response to it. So it is quite clear that there is ambiguity about whether this is a local issue. We considered all the evidence and came to the conclusion that the problem was best solved at a local level, as well as potentially looking at other legislative solutions on a much wider level through the Local Government Act.

It was the contention of Manukau and the then Auckland City Council that they could not regulate street prostitution by existing laws. We disagreed with that solution and we have heard that assessment. We noted that the Rodney District Council had specified that street-based sex workers meet the definition of “hawkers” and, as such, are regulated by its by-laws on trading in public places and require an operating licence from the council. Further, Hamilton City Council has created a prostitution by-law that restricts the location of brothels, sets out signage requirements, and also prohibits soliciting in public spaces and within view of public spaces. So we have evidence that by-laws are able to be used to regulate this.

The committee heard from a previous member that there is still the outstanding issue of enforcement. You can put a law on your books but can you enforce it? The question that the committee then had to consider was whether that issue would still exist if we legislated. The answer was yes. We would still have the problem, if we legislated, of the police needing to enforce the legislation or to enforce the by-laws that we would enable to be created by this legislation. That problem would not go away. In fact, we also were told that the police currently have the ability to prosecute on summary offences, which covers a wide range of behaviours such as suspected disorderly behaviour, indecent behaviour, threatening or indecent language, and wilful damage to property. They can arrest without warrant when they have good cause on any of those grounds already. All the behaviour that was described to us by businesses and residents fitted those areas of concern.

So the police have the ability already to arrest without a warrant. Why would we create a duplicate law for one specific area of the country, or even enable by-laws to duplicate that provision when obviously the problem is around the resourcing of the police to enable them to do that? If that is the problem, then we encourage the community and we encourage the council to be lobbying the Government for increasing resources to the police to enable that to happen. But we would go for a more empowerment-based model ourselves. Clearly, the answer is not in legislation, in duplicating existing powers.

Another reason we were told for putting forward this legislation was that it was expensive to introduce these kinds of by-laws. Therefore, the council wanted Parliament to spend the time—and it has spent 10 years—to develop legislation. We acknowledge that maybe there is an issue around the cost of developing by-laws and the processes of developing the regulations under that, but that is not an issue specific to prostitution or for the Auckland Council. That is a much wider issue that should more appropriately be dealt with through a wider piece of legislation, and we would encourage any council to negotiate with its member of Parliament for such legislation to be put forward. So we are not dismissing that concern; we are just saying that this piece of legislation is not the way to deal with it.

We were also told that enforcing by-laws can be resource intensive and that proving an offence can be difficult. Again, we believe that these challenges would remain if this legislation was introduced. There is nothing in this legislation that would solve that problem. Evidence has always been a really difficult thing in this area. In fact, one of the reasons for the introduction of the Prostitution Reform Act was as a public health measure to create an environment where we did not disincentivise the use of condoms, because prior to that legislation passing, condoms were used as evidence in prosecutions against sex workers. We would not want to see a return to that situation.

In some ways legislation is presented as a simple way to fix this problem. There is no simple way to fix this problem. But we would say that the discussions and the work that have been happening at the local level, post the introduction of the bill this time, have seemed to be really positive. There is work happening at the moment. It follows on from the Ministry of Justice’s report recommendations from 2009, where it went into the Manukau community and investigated the best possible response to solving these acknowledged problems. It came up with a really long list of actions that it recommended take place in that community, like having toilets open at night with lighting, putting in extra rubbish bins put in, and having control around the sale of alcohol in the area.

I do need to point out to the members in this House, and to anyone listening, that although we were told that all of those measures had been implemented, what we found was that they had not been, and that some had been implemented for only a short period of time and had then been unwound. Really, this community has not been served well by its council. The appropriate place for it to be solved is in the community. We believe that more resources from this Government to support the community to do that would be appropriate, but not legislation.