LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) : Currently, workers in the sex industry are suffering by being coerced, bullied, beaten and raped. They dare not speak out, because if they do, they are criminals. I ask those members who are hiding their heads in the sand: if prostitutes want to leave the industry, what choices do they have when they have a criminal record? They have no choice, whatsoever—they are trapped within the industry.

Those who advocate that the client should be the criminal are quite wrong. That will only drive this industry further underground, and it is underground already. That will increase the power of the corrupt involved in the industry. That will prevent workers having access to health and safety standards, and to rights of employment that every worker should enjoy. I support this bill, because it is about justice, safety, and dignity.

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) : I will begin my speech on the Prostitution Reform Bill today by telling the Committee that 2 or 3 weeks ago I had a grave crisis of conscience over this bill and was seriously considering changing my support for it. I was persuaded somewhat by a meeting I had with a Dr Melissa Farley, who is reputed to have provided research on the matter of prostitution. She apparently interviewed about 46 prostitutes, particularly in Auckland and Wellington. While I disagreed with her at the time, I took time afterwards to consider what she and I had debated. I also went for a walk down memory lane to visit the old haunts, so to speak, to remind myself why I was supporting this bill. When I reflected upon some of the violence and unpleasantness that occurs in this industry, I began to ask myself if I was doing the right thing in supporting this bill, and very nearly changed to not supporting it. But today I have gone back to my original feelings about the bill, because I have been reliably informed about the research of Dr Melissa Farley, and now question its credibility. As members might have done, I have received not only the preliminary report she produced, but also the questionnaire answered by those prostitutes.

I was visited by a lady by the name of Colleen Winn, who was briefly employed by Dr Melissa Farley while she was in New Zealand doing this research. Her employment ceased very quickly, because she suddenly discovered that she had a number of concerns that she could not possibly continue working with. I would like to enlighten the Committee about that, because I know some members have been using Dr Farley’s research in their speeches against this bill. I would like to read extracts from a letter Ms Winn has written to me, subsequent to a meeting I had with her last week in my constituency office. I quote: “I believe Melissa did state that Māori women were entering prostitution as young as 9 years old. Part of my position as researcher on this study was to help to collate data as I viewed all the questionnaires. I did not see these figures in the study at all. However, there were two women who stated that their first sexual experience was at age 9.” Question 13 of the questionnaire reads: “How old were you when you had your first sexual experience of any kind?” I refer members to page 3 of the research I have here, where it states: “An adolescent told us that if she were out of prostitution, she would just like to be at home. She had been in prostitution since age of 9. A Māori girl, New Zealand street prostitution, 2003.” Clearly, the answer to question 13 was put across as though it were the answer to question 1. Question 1 in the questionnaire asks: “What age were you when you first started prostitution?”

I will carry on with extracts from that letter: “On the second day of my employment with Melissa Farley, I discovered that her research project had not been seen or passed by any ethics committee in New Zealand. It was at this point that I withdrew my services as researcher and terminated my employment agreement. I have read and am aware of the ethics of psychologists working in New Zealand. I know these were not adhered to.” That is of concern in relation to this research. It is interesting to note that after Colleen Winn had raised concerns that the questionnaire had not been passed by an ethics committee in New Zealand, she told me orally that on occasions some of the prostitutes were in receipt of about $20 for answering the questionnaire. That seems a little unethical to me, but the explanation was that prostitutes charge for their time.

I continue to quote from the letter: “I am aware that Melissa gave a TV interview with the Breakfast show, and quoted a statistic as being 86 percent in New Zealand.” From what I can gather, she was referring to the second paragraph on page 2 of Dr Farley’s preliminary report: “We found significant race/ethnic differences in age of entry into prostitution: 68 percent of Māori respondents entered prostitution at the age of 17 or younger.” I make that point because television is nationwide and viewed by many people, and an incorrect impression might have been given—there is a difference between 86 percent and 68 percent.

Finally, it is the opinion of Ms Winn that this study “was not ethical, and the impact has done harm to those women and men who took part in it. It is for that reason that I am writing to the psychologists board of registration in California to lay a formal complaint regarding Melissa. I also believe that Melissa has committed an act of intentional misrepresentation of fact.” That last point was the reason Ms Winn contacted me. She also offers to talk to anybody else who wishes to clarify further some of the matters she has raised, but she just has not had the opportunity to contact members of Parliament. She also told me that Ms Farley’s research was funded by the Maxim Institute. I would have thought that such an august group might have been a little more considered in employing someone. At least, it should have passed questionnaires through the New Zealand ethics committee to make sure that the research adhered to all of that.

In reflecting back on my experiences, I asked myself what would be achieved if nothing happened with this bill and the status quo remained. That would simply not be good enough, so my support for the bill will continue. Issues have been raised that there would be an explosion of gang and criminal involvement etc. if the law were liberalised, but I do not think that will be the case. When something is opened up and is more public, with—for want of a better term—more State control, the last thing the criminals will want is to be engaged in that area, because it is fraught with all sorts of problems. They prefer to work underground—that way, they can keep out of the sight of the laws in this country as much as possible, so I believe that there are some issues around that. I will stop there for now, but I may want to speak later.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) : In all humility, do we as citizens really want this bill to be passed? Do we want our generations yet to come to be born into a world of degradation? Do we want our children and our grandchildren to have available, as they would under this bill, a recommendation that there is a job down the road as a prostitute, and that if it does not work out, the Accident Compensation Corporation and Work and Income New Zealand will be available to provide further assistance, if needed? Where will this bill take New Zealand citizens? Where will it place families on the agenda of New Zealand’s social structure? I have great regard for those who have stood to be counted as being against this bill, and I challenge those who support this bill to go back to their electorates and talk to the families who reside there. They will find that the great majority of them will speak out against it.

This bill is an abomination against society, and it is against the sound social fabric of families. It will never alleviate the problems that we do have, but it will escalate them into a situation that will go beyond our control. New Zealand First strongly proposes that this Parliament vote against the Prostitution Reform Bill so that families will continue to be strong—so that they will contribute to our communities positively and uphold standards of integrity and decency. I also notify this Committee that New Zealand First opposes any suggestion of making any amendments to cushion what will still be disastrous.

How in the world can anyone say that this bill is flying the banner of human dignity? Does it enhance the protocols of decency? Does this bill encourage proper and good health practices? Is there any moral integrity in this bill? For those who have a concern for the future of our people and nation, I strongly recommend that we vote against it. It is an abomination to all humanity. I am astounded when I hear people express concern for their families and say how much they mean to them, then go into reverse to support proposed legislation that will contribute hugely to a failure of promoting good family values.

I am appalled that we as a society will, in some instances, support such legislation, even with suggested alternatives, when, in the case of this bill, evidence already exists that very young girls are out on the streets trying to make a dollar to satisfy the demands of gangs throughout the nation, and especially now that we have in our communities and schools the enormous problems that methamphetamine is creating. Our world has enough trash in it without us engineering more through legislation that will bring our nation to its knees.

In conclusion, I leave the Committee with this thought: it all begins with our own personal virtue. Reformation of the world begins with reformation of self. We cannot hope to influence others in the direction of moral virtues unless we live lives of virtue. The example of our virtuous living will carry a greater influence than will all the preaching, postulating, and theorising that we might indulge in. We cannot expect to lift others unless we are standing on higher ground. Finally, I give a quotation from Professor Hirini Moko Meads, which I will translate: “He toi whakairo, he mana tangata.”: where there is artistic excellence, there is human dignity.

TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) : I have used my right to speak as sponsor of this bill quite sparingly, but I thought now might be a good chance to draw together some of the threads of the Committee stage to date. So far in this stage we have debated the bill for about 6 hours and passed its title. Many of us earnestly hope we will be dealing with the amendments before today’s sitting finishes. I know the record of these debates is important for the future, and there are issues around the bill, particularly those touched on by the amendments today, that some members are still exploring.

To try to focus my comments, I took what some may regard as a brave step of sitting down with the Hansard of our last Committee stage debate, which took place 4 weeks ago today. I analysed the speeches in opposition to the bill and identified the main lines of argument. The immediate thing that struck me was that the nature of this debate has changed. Some new issues have arisen; some others have subsided. I have prepared some new briefing notes that focus on those matters, and they have been circulated today to members.

This bill is a product of years of discussion. Some here may regard it as a work of the devil, or even worse. But I do hope that all can respect it as a desperately serious attempt to address some real evils. I also hope that members can respect that its authors, from Maurice Williamson to Katherine O’Regan, from the National Council of Women of New Zealand to Business and Professional Women, were, and are, utterly convinced that the decriminalisation model was, and is, the proper way to go. I also note that no one has questioned the fact that this nation’s major women’s, human rights, and public health groups, support this proposed new law for prostitution. Some members have questioned whether Parliament has spent sufficient time on this legislation. Oddly enough, the same members seem also to bemoan the fact that we are facing so many amendments during this Committee stage. Well, no force on earth will stop members of Parliament from producing amendments on a complex matter, such as prostitution. Indeed, what we are going through now is a process enthusiastically supported by the New Zealand public. We have approached a progressive, internally consistent proposal for law change in a cross-party way.

This bill was largely prepared by two National members of Parliament, and sponsored by myself, a Labour MP. The Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered the bill, was chaired by two MPs, one National and one ACT. Some members claim there was “nothing broke” in the way our prostitution law currently works, so why fix it? That is one of the most sterile of arguments. Firstly, it is so lacking in ambition for this nation. I want us to have high-quality law in every area, not some awkward fudge because Parliament is too afraid to bite the bullet and deal with the hard issues. Secondly, that argument passively leaves an acceptable level of discretion in the hands of our police. It is simply unacceptable for our approach to prostitution to be based on law with inherent gender bias that can be activated by police who decide that some street workers are easy pickings on a quiet night. That was what happened in Auckland on two nights this year. The police made a series of arrests on the streets of Auckland. They were damaging their relationship with members of a community whose cooperation is vital to effective policing in the inner city and who are vulnerable to violent attack by the nature of their work—a danger increased because our laws tell them to live in the shadows. I tell those Māori and Samoan members of Parliament who intend to oppose this bill to explain their vote to Māori and Samoan prostitutes who are demanding law change and who are much more likely to be arrested than their Pākehā counterparts.

The 2003 year has also seen at least three police raids of reportedly unregistered escort agencies. The charge will be brothel keeping. The evidence will include condoms found on the scene, yet the Inland Revenue Department is happy to accept those workers as taxpayers, and even operate a special unit to cater for them, and public health helps to provide those condoms. If that is not State hypocrisy, I do not know what is. I am sorry that the amendments in the name of Gordon Copeland and Wayne Mapp currently before this Committee sustain all that nonsense. Other members claim that we have done insufficient research on the topic. The select committee met on and off for 2 years on this matter. Its members travelled the country, received 222 submissions, covering every conceivable viewpoint, and heard 66 submissions. We were advised by four State agencies, including those of police and health. Our desire to travel to see how the laws were operating in Australia came up against the rules governing select committees, so we personally paid to go in order that we, as a Committee, could do the best job possible.

Some say that this bill normalises prostitution, but they carefully avoid saying what they really mean by that. Does the Human Rights Act normalise discrimination? Does consumer law normalise shonky trade practices? Well, my bill certainly decriminalises—that means specific law targeted on clear criminalities and exposure to all of the general laws. The result is that an activity that is currently regulated by police-driven systems will instead be regulated by the range of State agencies that most small businesses have to contend with; plus there will be distinct laws on such varied issues as safer sex practices, signage, and age limit. Is that normalising? This bill specifically makes no moral judgment about prostitution, any more than other laws on consensual adult activity seek to pass judgment. Some have argued that this bill was amended at the select committee in ways that effectively increased the level of acceptance of prostitution. That is simply not true. Amendments agreed to relate to penalties, which were increased, to the establishment of a review committee, and to some very specific scenarios brought to the attention of the committee, particularly banning Work and Income from referring people to sex work.

The arrogance of some lines of argument we have had relating to this bill are a little staggering. Some claim that this bill will not offer any help to sex workers. By implication they claim they know more about what it is like to be a sex worker than do members of the Prostitutes Collective. If this bill passes in its present form, sex workers will benefit in the following ways: their work environments will improve in accordance with an occupational safety and health code, which could not be produced under the current law; they will be less constrained in forming collectives, or similar worker-run businesses—currently such businesses run as escort agencies and are outside the law; they will be able to be employed under employment contracts, which is impossible under current law; they will be able to withdraw from an implied contract with a client without fear of a sanction from the operator of the prostitution business; operators who use coercive behaviour against their sex workers will face higher penalties than they do now;if they are street workers they will be able to use the services of a safe house as a location for sexual activity with their client rather than in a street or the back of a car—such a house would now breach a number of current laws; if they are street workers they will no longer be in danger of arrest for soliciting offences, and thus will not have a prostitution related conviction—such a conviction makes obtaining a mortgage or travel to Australia or the USA virtually impossible; and they will also be served by a more comprehensive range of agencies that are designed to help them to exit from prostitution.

The honourable member who spoke before me spoke of a world of degradation and of prostitution, as treated in this bill, as an abomination against society. I have just identified a list of positive interventions to help people who are suffering in our society and to create balance in law. It is about higher ground, not about the comments made by that previous member. We have 21 amendments to decide on at the end of this Committee stage. Some enhance the bill, some cause minor damage to it, and some, in my view, would cripple the legislation, and I reserve my right as sponsor of the bill to take more calls as we focus on those issues.

EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) : New Zealand First opposes this bill in its entirety. We have just listened to the Minister speak to all the ideals that he wants to happen through this bill. I want to pitch my kōrero at the Māori MPs across the House. I want to pitch my kōrero in relation to the disgraceful, despicable, and demeaning law this bill will provide for Māoridom. I thank the kaumātua, the Hon Dover Samuels, and Nanaia Mahuta. I am sure their constituents will also thank them for the stand they have taken against this bill. I thank them for the positive vote that they have given.

I want to touch on one or two things. In relation to drug abuse, I say to members in the Chamber today that the methamphetamine problem of the moment will be the gangs’ outlet for the supply of this particular drug. I tell the Māori MPs that I have here a copy of the Assignment programme shown on television last week that portrayed 13 and 14-year-old Māori women prostitutes. The programme said that 8 and 9-year-old Māori girls are currently on the street prostituting themselves. I want to explain to members why that is. In west Auckland women are using the drug P, and to finance their drug habit they are crossing to south Auckland to prostitute themselves to get the money to go back to west Auckland and purchase drugs. I say to Māori MPs that they should look at that programme if they have not already.

My first question to Māori MPs is whether they are happy to go into the next election with this conscience issue over their heads.

Mita Ririnui: Absolutely!

EDWIN PERRY: We will soon see. This afternoon I have heard that Māoridom is happy with this bill. I do not know what street those members have been going down or whom they have been speaking to, but, quite frankly, the Māori constituents I speak to disagree with this bill. Last Friday I spoke on Ngāti Porou radio in respect of this bill. The feedback from the listeners was overwhelmingly that the Māori MPs on the Government side of the House should cross the floor and vote against this bill. The heart of Māoridom is saying that, but, no, those members will vote for this bill to pass through the House.

Hon Maurice Williamson: It’s a conscience vote.

EDWIN PERRY: I know it is a conscience vote. At the end of the day they will vote for it, and if they do, then the responsibility is on their heads for the next election. At the next election we will go out and tell the whānau who voted for this particular bill.

In a letter I received from Chris Olsen, who has her master’s degree with honours in public policy, is a trustee for the Oasis Youth and Community Trust facility in Wainuiomata, and who knows a bit about this subject, she wrote: “We know of a young person who is involved in prostitution to clear a debt, and the effects on the life of this person. To maintain such a horrible life this person started to use drugs and alcohol to try and blot out the miserable life that she was leading as a prostitute.” So if those MPs think that this is the right bill to vote for, then I ask them to think again. Postitution will become the centre of influence for criminal activity.

I also mention the trafficking of women. There will be an increase in the importation of Asian women into the country to service the prostitution industry. Of recent times there has been several reports of clothing workers from Asian countries being entrapped in New Zealand and made virtual slaves in the prostitution industry.

It was reported in an Australian newspaper on 2 March 2000 that the New South Wales police commissioner, when commenting on 40 shootings in 3 months in Sydney suburbs, stated that there was a struggle between rival groups for control of the drug and prostitution trade. I say to the members present today that gangs are shooting at each other already. It will become a matter of a patch boundary for gangs. They will be involved in securing their patches in the areas for prostitution. We have heard in previous kōrero on this particular bill that gangs will not be able to buy into this practice. I am telling members that they will be able to do so. They will put a clean-skinned person up, they will front this business with money, and they will get their hands on and control of this industry.

New Zealand First has been informed that in 1992 a UK criminologist stated that all prostitutes suffered deep physiological damage as a result of this occupation. I can just see our young Māori women being led down this track into deprivation and the breakdown of the family unit. Quite frankly, this is a deplorable bill that is being offered to our young people. All I heard from the Minister this afternoon was about young Māoris, and that is the track I am taking. Sandra Coney, probably New Zealand’s foremost advocate for women, and the current executive director of the Women’s Health Action Trust, is totally opposed to this bill. If that is not enough information for Māori MPs across the House, what more do we have to put in?

New Zealand First is a political party that strongly supports the family and family values. We see the family as the core of our society. Normalising prostitution attacks the very foundation of our society and of our families. In closing, I say that New Zealand First will endeavour to make prostitution an election issue.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (NZ National—Pakuranga) : I want to deal with only two basic headings in my presentation tonight because this subject goes all over the paddock when people are speaking. The two things I want to cover are under the headings of “That’s what’s going on under the current law”, and “Is that what we really want for people?”.

Firstly, I have heard some impassioned speeches from the Hon Dover Samuels, and just now from Edwin Perry, telling us about 13-year-old girls in Papatoetoe and what is going on. I sit listening and think that something is going wrong in this regard. They oppose this bill, but they are telling us about all the dreadful things that are going on now before the bill is passed. It is not this bill that is doing it. Thirteen-year-old girls are prostituting themselves under the current law. I would have thought that members would want to change that.

Stephen Franks: This won’t do that!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The member says that this bill will not do it, but it will free up law and order officers to start to deal with those issues that are wrong. We think that being under-age is wrong, coercion is wrong, and drugs are wrong. We think all of those other things that I hear being mentioned that this legislation will supposedly allow. Well, it is not. It simply is not. When I hear about the use of methamphetamine and prostitution in south Auckland, I know it is going on right now. I heard the Hon Dover Samuels say that he went to Greenwoods Corner, or wherever it was, and saw for himself what was going on. Again, I say to members that that is happening now, under the law as it now stands. I am staggered that every member of Parliament—as those members speak—does not want to change what is going on now. I do not want 13-year-old girls coerced. I do not want the problem of gangs, drugs, and all those other practices.

I most certainly do not want that, but I do not believe that the State should play a role in a willing seller - willing buyer situation between consenting adults—where there is no coercion, no force by drugs, or whatever else—and make somebody a criminal because of it. I stress that prostitution has to be done in proper circumstances. We cannot have it occurring in the general public arena, in front of schools, and so on, even if it did involve consenting adults. All of us do not want that.

I have seen example after example of what is happening. In fact, the worse example I saw happening, when I was a Minister, was when I was negotiating with the Prostitutes Collective to provide condoms for the safe-sex message, and the police used those condoms—condoms that we as a Government had provided—as evidence of prostitution. Another example, which just left me cold, was in Christchurch and involved a couple of policemen posing as TV3 cameramen. They went into a massage parlour and upstairs into the little booths, took off their clothes, lay naked next to a young lady, and when she then offered to do something, they said: “You’re busted!” Where was the crime there? Do the police not have a helluva lot more issues they should be putting their time into? Yes, if one of those ladies had been under age, and, yes, if one of them were being forced by some drug baron to do it, or whatever, then I would agree with every member here.

I hope that everyone will look at the amendments to ask how we can get a sensible outcome so that we can start to clear the kids from the industry, and focus on getting out on the streets where people are vulnerable and being hurt. I do not want sex workers working on the streets under any circumstances, but one of the crazy things about the current law is that a person caught and convicted of soliciting is then banned from working in a massage parlour—which is probably the safest place for that person to be. I do not understand that. I would have thought that we would want to get those people away to a safe place where one knows what is going on, and where, as long as the situation is between consenting adults, everyone has some protections and rights. That is what we want.

But I go back to my heading. All these speeches have been about what is going on now. They have been impassioned speeches; they have been quite brilliant speeches. Those speeches would have a helluva lot of merit if they were being given in, say, 2 years’ time, and said: “That’s what Tim Barnett’s bill has caused.” But not one of them was. Every one of the speeches is about “That’s what’s going on now. That’s what you will see in Papatoetoe tonight. That’s what you will see in west Auckland tonight.”—and this bill has not yet been passed. So I ask everyone to think about doing something.

I move to the second heading, “Is that what you really want?”. We get these dreadful questions being asked of us, like: “Would you want your daughter to be a prostitute?”. Of course we would not. God knows, I would not want my daughter to grow up to be a politician, either. I hope she never does. If she does, I will still love her and forgive her, and I will hope that one day she sees some sense. What I am saying is that we would not want that. I would prefer that prostitution did not exist, and I hope that one day everyone is financially viable enough never to have to consider it, and so on. But the reality is that there has always been prostitution in the world, and there always will be, even when the punishments are very severe. In some Islamic countries the punishment is being stoned to death. It still happens.

So the idea that we will fix the problem of prostitution by making it illegal is simply nonsense. It is like the Americans in the 1920s saying: “Booze is so bad, but I’ll tell you what we will do. We’ll make it illegal, and that will fix the alcohol issue.” I do not think there is a single person in this House, including even some of the wowsers around here, who think that going to prohibition would be the right way to fix an alcohol problem.

I want a sensible piece of legislation. Again, I go back to the willing seller - willing buyer situation. If members of this House want, I am very happy for them to put up whatever amendments they think will safeguard people against under-age prostitution and coercion. I know that Lianne Dalziel has some good stuff about the immigration issue. We have just heard that all the Thai workers will be flocking in here to work. Well, immigration laws can be fixed to deal with that situation. Phil Goff has some stuff about local authorities having some say about the location of premises. I will support that. I am a big fan to support anything that gets all of those bits tidied. But, in the end, it comes down to this: do we want to make a criminal out of a person who does this, or do we want to try to put in some support and help?

I hear some of the religious people in this Chamber—and I am not one of them—go on about being Christian. I think the least Christian thing one could do is to persecute and punish somebody who is involved in prostitution. If anything, if we really believed those members’ view that prostitution is so bad, evil, degrading, and dehumanising, then we should be feeling some sympathy and support for prostitutes, rather than wanting to punish them, prosecute them, make them into criminals, and so on.

I want all members in this House to start focusing their speeches on two things: first of all, what will these changes bring about, and what do they want. I do not want them to keep going on about what is there now and how evil it is. What is there now is evil, and that is the exact reason for passing this bill—to change the situation. As my final parting shot, I have to say to the Catholic Action Group—which has again threatened me today with burning in hell for ever, for eternity—that it will be a helluva lot warmer in that climate than it is out there right now, because it is damn cold. I will give them the figures—

Rodney Hide: There are better people down there.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: There are better people down there, too—yes. All I can say is that I have done the numbers—I have a physics background. At an average of 5,000 degrees Celsius—that is an estimate of what the temperature of the furnaces are; I do not know—with my body mass of 82 kilograms I would last 3.2 seconds, and that is hardly eternity, in my view. Their view is just nonsense. We should not even deign to listen to the sort of rubbish about the moral sin and burning in hell.

This House has an obligation to pass sensible legislation that protects those adults who are consenting to prostitution in private and not causing trouble, and then to begin the clean-up of the under-age problem, the coercion, the drugs, the stolen property, the gangs, and whatever else. I hear again that if prostitution is made legal, the gangs will all move into it. Prostitution in the early 1900s in the United States was totally illegal, and the Mafia ran the lot. So if members think that making it illegal gets the gangs out, I point out that the evidence shows the exact opposite. When it was totally illegal, the Mafia and John Dillinger and all the boys ran prostitution and the numbers rackets right through Chicago and right through New York. All I can say is that that argument holds no water whatsoever.

I ask members when they speak to try to focus please on things that will fix the current problems, because they are serious ones. Let us get ourselves into an environment where we can move on, where sex workers can be safe and in a safe environment, and, hopefully, where we become financially viable as a nation to the point that people do not have to do such things.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member I indicate to members that we have had a very full, rigorous, and passionate debate, and that is the way it should be in this place. But interjections have not always been in keeping with the standard of behaviour that has occurred so far in this debate. So I ask members to take that into account please.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : First of all, in response to the previous speaker, who has appealed to us about the fact that if we make prostitution illegal it will not change things, I refer him to an article from the Dominion Post that talks about the death of a poor sex worker in Sydney, Australia, where, of course, it has been decriminalised since 1995. When that poor woman choked to death on her vomit, it ended 15 torturous years in Australia, first as a child sex slave, then as a heroin-addicted prostitute.

The article stated: “Puongtong died malnourished, weighing only 31 kilograms, but her lonely death in a Sydney detention centre in 2001 sparked neither newspaper headlines nor outrage from politicians.” It is true that we have a situation that exists right now and is not satisfactory for us as a country, but it is not true to say that by decriminalising that activity it is going to get any better. It has not anywhere in the world. All the international evidence points to the fact that it has in fact got worse, not only with the situation regarding local prostitutes but also in the incidence of international trafficking in women and children, and slavery has increased in every nation that has liberalised its prostitution laws.

I want to make some comments about one of the first speakers tonight, Georgina Beyer, who viciously attacked Melissa Farley’s research. I am rather disappointed because I had understood and had heard from the member’s own mouth that her opposition—which had switched in the last few weeks towards this bill—was based not on Melissa’s research but on the fact she had been back to look at where she had been involved in prostitution herself in her life some years ago, and her conclusion had been that this legislation did nothing to prevent women from entering prostitution, nor did it do anything to help women exit the industry, and that is why she was considering opposing it. Melissa Farley’s research had nothing to do with that. In fact, no one in this House would know better what a hellhole prostitution is than Georgina Beyer herself. The idea that this bill was supposed to prevent women from entering it is a nonsense, and that is why we oppose it. It is not going to deliver for the people involved in prostitution what they hope it will.

In fact, regardless of Melissa’s research, I have conducted several public debates around the country since this bill has been of public interest, and prostitutes from both sides of the camp have stood up during those debates. Some are hoping that this bill is going to solve all their problems, and others, some of whom had years of experience, disagreed. In fact, one who had 20 years' experience was at the most recent debate, where Sue Bradford was present, and she said she has been in massage parlours all over the country. She has been a prostitute all around the world, and she completely scorned the idea that this bill was going to make life better for prostitutes. If we cannot take it from the mouth of that prostitute, who has some credibility, then I do not know who we are going to be listening to. Melissa Farley came here on a very short trip—10 days. She did her very best to interview prostitutes from morning till night to try to get some indication of what is really happening in New Zealand, and I think it is deplorable that people are attacking minute details of that research as a way of trying to shift the emphasis upon the horrible lifestyle that prostitutes have in this country.

I am also concerned about the status quo. I do not believe that the status quo in this country is good enough. I have racked my brains over the last months to try to see what we could actually do that would be common sense in order to address some of the concerns that are raised by this bill. I put forward an amendment that I thought might have offered some assistance. I am sympathetic to the fact that these poor women can be tricked by policemen in a massage parlour, and prosecuted for soliciting when the massage parlour owner—who is operating as a brothel keeper and is living off the earnings of prostitution, which is an offence under the Crimes Act—is allowed to get away scot-free. I think that that is an injustice, and I would like to have addressed it. I think it is also a shame that women who are soliciting on the street are prosecuted but the police do not go round the corner and find the illegal brothel and do something about that. But as I have tried to find a way forward, I have come to the conclusion that almost anything we try to do with this bill to try to make life better for a prostitute ends up having a very negative consequence. So I shall be withdrawing my amendment as from tonight. I have had to admit that it will not achieve what I hoped it would achieve. If we take away the Summary Offences Act—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired.

LARRY BALDOCK: Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has used up his speeches.

LARRY BALDOCK: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have not. I have had only one speech in this section of the debate. I spoke during the debate on the title, but I have not spoken during this section.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): According to the notes we have here, the member has had his four calls on this part.

LARRY BALDOCK: I have not, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will check that.

LARRY BALDOCK: I shall come back to you after the dinner break. I did not get a call last time we debated this, in the entire evening that we debated it, and prior to that it was the vote—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I come back to the member shortly on that please?

LARRY BALDOCK: Yes. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) : Tim Barnett is naive if he believes that the decriminalisation of prostitution will not see an increase in the number of people entering the industry. Decriminalising prostitution and putting it on the same footing as other occupations and businesses is simply legitimising the entire industry, and it is sending the wrong message out to the young and the vulnerable, who will see prostitution as a genuine career choice. That would be a tragedy.

Tim Barnett would have us believe that the purpose of this bill is to protect the health and well-being of prostitutes and the public as a whole, to safeguard the human rights of sex workers, and to protect them from exploitation. That sounds well and good, but the decriminalisation of prostitution in the manner that this bill attempts also legitimises the peripheral businesses along with it; in other words, drugs, trafficking, and pimping—everything that goes with it. The question must be asked: is this bill’s ultimate intention to legitimise those peripheral businesses and to decriminalise the trafficking and exploitation of young women, and drugs, because both of those also have serious health problems associated with them? Prostitution is the hiring of humans to act like sexualised puppets. Prostitution always includes the dehumanisation, objectification, and fetishisation of women and children. Decriminalisation makes prostitution no safer or less humiliating for those in it. It simply puts the State in the role of pimp, collecting taxes. Collecting taxes is what this Government is good at, and this bill adds pimping to the Government’s credentials. In other words, they will be living off the earnings of prostitutes.

Let us have a look at some of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward. Dianne Yates makes an attempt at criminalising the client. That is commendable—it is part of a bill that New Zealand First has in the ballot—but that particular Supplementary Order Paper is nothing more than a band-aid because it will not work under this bill. The bill has clauses that will completely negate her Supplementary Order Paper. Let us look at Lianne Dalziel’s Supplementary Order Paper. The Minister of Immigration would have us believe that she will control the immigration aspect of this bill, and make it illegal for immigrants and student immigrants to work as prostitutes. This Minister has already demonstrated that she is unable to control or even correctly identify student immigrants. How on earth does this Minister think that she will control prostitution under this bill? How will the Minister prevent students from entering prostitution to pay for their fees? Maybe she will wait until New Zealand First points it out to her, then, again, she will ignore the warnings until prostitution is so rife that she can no longer ignore the issue. Then she will claim she was on to it all along. Wayne Mapp has an amendment also. Wayne Mapp was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and he tells me that his amendment is designed to bring the bill back into line with the select committee’s views and recommendations. If that is correct, then it begs the question: why was the select committee’s review not included and why has this bill deviated so much from those views that it has attracted so many amendments?

Since the introduction of this bill in September 2000, my New Zealand First colleague Peter Brown has carried out an enormous amount of work. He has spoken to many interest groups and individuals, some of whom have been for this bill and some against. Peter Brown has spoken to them all. As a result of that work, I am pleased and proud to be able to sponsor a member’s bill called the Prostitution (Client Liability and Prostitute Care) Bill. The bill is in the ballot and is waiting to be drawn. That bill is based on the Swedish law model, which was introduced in 1999. Much of the work and research in that bill has been undertaken by Peter Brown. Under the provisions in my bill, the client will be prosecuted. My bill counteracts the harmful effects of prostitution by making it a criminal offence to be a client in an act of prostitution. Accompanying the prohibition with associated measures directed at restricting advertising, among other things it provides support mechanisms that will help prostitutes to get out of the industry. The bill will make sure that prostitutes have all the support they need when they want to leave the industry, and to encourage them to leave. New Zealand First’s bill, which is in the ballot, intends to change the whole face of prostitution.

I conclude by saying that I oppose the Prostitution Reform Bill. I oppose the amendments that go with it, because they are trying to water down the whole effect of the bill and detract from the real issue, which is that legitimising prostitution only legitimises the industries that build up around prostitution, and that is the wrong thing to do. This bill goes about it the wrong way. We propose to put up our bill to replace it.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. First, I acknowledge the mistake I made, in that I have had three calls, as the Clerk has pointed out. I understand that, in the beginning, when the House agreed that this bill would be debated in parts, rather than part by part, the debate was to be wide-ranging, with as many calls as a member wished to take. Since then the goal posts have moved a bit, and members are limited to four calls. There is a lot that has to be said. I am not wasting the Committee’s time. I am making constructive comments, and I wish to make some comments about two more of the amendments that are before the Committee. Therefore, I seek leave of the Committee to be able to have some additional calls this evening.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave for an additional call. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is it for one call or four?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is it for one call?

LARRY BALDOCK: I think I need two, if I may, to complete what I need to say. We have plenty of time in this Committee for such an important piece of legislaiton.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

LARRY BALDOCK: I seek leave for one extra call.

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

LARRY BALDOCK: Thank you.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I do hope that we do not draw out this debate for too long, because I think that it would be great if we could vote tonight. Having said that, I should not be taking a call, but I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment that is on the Table from the Green Party—from myself, with Sue Kedgley behind me. We had two separate amendments earlier in the Committee stage, and as we are about to vote, I hope, on the amendments, I am seeking support for the revised amendment that the Green Party is putting forward. The amendment deals with the question of the advertising of commercial sexual services should the bill be passed. We were concerned, as Mr Copeland from United Future has been, about the fact that nothing in the bill looked at the whole question of what would happen in terms of advertising if the bill went through. Our revised amendment calls for there to be no advertising of commercial sexual services on television, radio, or in public movie theatres. We do accept advertising in newspapers and magazines, but only in the classified advertisements sections. That is pretty close to the status quo, and it also allows magazines with R18-type audiences, such as Express and other magazines, to continue to run their R18-type advertisements.

Mr Copeland and others seem to believe that there should be no advertising at all. We think that that is totally unrealistic and would lead to some regrettable outcomes, such as an increase in street soliciting and pimping, and also would be in the interests of big-business owners who could afford large-scale street signage. I do not think that any of that is really what any of us wants. If one is to run a service, one has to be able to advertise it. That is why we have put forward this amendment with an overall desire to strengthen the bill from whatever point of view members are coming from. We think it is in everyone’s interests to have a sensible approach to advertising, so that we do not have the kind of undesirable consequences of either increased street soliciting and pimping, or of seeing advertisements on prime-time television for brothels. We do not want our children, and probably even ourselves, to have to watch that. For those of us who do support decriminalisation, it is important that we make the bill as sensible as possible.

Beyond that, I would like to thank some members tonight, like Georgina Beyer, for exposing the myths that Dr Melissa Farley has been putting forward around the country on behalf of the Maxim Institute and others who have been opposing the bill. I thank Tim Barnett for his work on drawing the arguments together. I thank Maurice Williamson for trying to bring us back to the reality that the very evils so many members who oppose this bill are talking about are things that are happening now, and that what those of us who support the bill are trying to do is to fight those evils, and to bring in better public health and a much safer environment for sex workers. We want to see an empowering environment that is not in the control of gangs or big business but is much more in the hands of sex workers themselves.

I note that some people here have talked about Sandra Coney and her arguments from a feminist perspective. Once again, it is very ironic that a feminist like Miss Coney is an abolitionist. I cannot understand how someone who has spent her life defending the rights of women can turn round and say that we should be opposing a bill that will stop the criminalising and arresting of women on the streets of Auckland, many of whom are Māori women, I might add. As to the sense in that, what good does it do to any woman or man to be dragged through the police cells, through the courts, and have his or her whole life changed and damaged by a conviction? I just cannot understand feminist arguments that support the continued criminalisation of those workers.

In conclusion, I make a last-minute plea to members from all sides of the House to consider supporting the bill. I make a particular plea to members of the ACT party, some of whom support the bill and some of whom do not. Again, I cannot understand why any member of the ACT party would oppose this bill, given their avowed commitment on many other fronts to getting the State out of people’s lives, and, in this particular case, getting the State out of the lives of consenting adults over the age of 18.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : In reporting back on this bill, the Justice and Electoral Committee stated that the bill was not intended to equate with the promotion of prostitution as an acceptable career option, but instead to enable sex workers to have access to the same protections that are afforded to other workers, and to make it easier for them to exit the industry. Tonight Maurice Williamson has stated that he wishes that prostitution did not exist. It appears that a number of speakers have indicated that their view is that prostitution is a negative factor in our society, but they somehow see that this bill will insist on reducing the incidence of prostitution, rather than increasing it.

Firstly, I say I have a huge amount of sympathy for women who find themselves trapped in this industry, who want to exit it, and who find that there are reasons that they cannot, whether those reasons are psychological, in terms of being scared to approach people for assistance, or are that the women are being victimised in some other way. But this legislation will not make it easier for people to exit the industry. This legislation commercialises the industry, and if this bill passes it is inevitable that prostitution will increase and will be in one’s face. In terms of our society, this legislation will change it for the worse. Basically, this legislation will commercialise the industry and open it up to market forces. We need only to compare this industry with other industries, and to look at the effect of market forces on other products that are sold in those industries, to see exactly the sort of thing that will happen.

I will start by quoting from the Dominion Post of Wednesday April 9, from an article entitled “Madam opens hanky-panky sex school”. It reads: “The former madam of a Dutch escort agency has opened a Hanky-Panky School for Prostitutes to teach the world’s oldest profession how to make more money. Elene Vis, whose autobiography made her a Dutch tabloid darling, opened the school last week in a luxury Amsterdam canal house to offer prostitutes ‘exclusive sales training’ to boost their business. ‘You could call it sales techniques. You have to sell yourself, and it doesn’t matter if you sell your body or you sell vacuum cleaners. The principle is exactly the same’, Vis, 43, says. Vis, once dubbed ‘the five-star madam’, ran a firm providing expensive escorts to wealthy clients for 20 years. She says the men and women prostitutes who worked for her agency could make about EUR$6,000 (NZ$12,000) a month for 40 hours’ work.”

Now, if that is a lessening of the industry, I fail to see just how people can rationalise that. That is the sort of thing we will see coming into New Zealand, as market forces start to dictate what happens and as groups see prostitution as a way of making significant amounts of money. In the Dominion Post on 2 May there was an article entitled “Madam excites the Stock Exchange”, which stated: “Australian investors plunged into the world’s oldest profession yesterday when a Melbourne company became the globe’s first listed brothel. Shares of the bordello’s enterprise, which hired Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss to spice up its listing and touts itself as a recession-proof, five-star hotel, doubled on their first day of trading. About 1.4 million shares of the company—called The Daily Planet—sold. ‘Obviously the price is going to go up. It’s sex … and everyone knows sex is a smart investment,’ Fleiss said just before the shares started trading.” Any suggestion that commercialising the sex industry by freeing it up and allowing free market forces to operate will reduce the incidence of prostitution is really out of this world.

Peter Brown: Absolute rubbish.

MURRAY SMITH: I totally agree; it is complete rubbish. What will we see? What will our society be like? Maurice Williamson has challenged people to stand up here in the Committee and talk about what our society will be like. Let us talk about advertising. Sue Bradford talked about how we will restrict advertising. If the amendments are passed—and we are yet to see that happen—we will have no newspaper advertising, except for advertisements in the classified columns. There is to be no advertising on television or radio. OK. So if a person who is selling sex services wants to increase the profitability of doing so, that person will look at other ways of advertising. What about letterbox drops of brochures? What about supermarket charge-out slips? What about some of the discount voucher books that go out? There is no way that we will stop every form of advertising that it is possible to use.

Larry Baldock: Women in windows.

MURRAY SMITH: Exactly. As my friend says, there will be women in windows. It will be legal to put signage on buildings. Again, there are amendments to try to restrict where that signage will be, but we will find that brothels are quite entitled to put up neon signs, particularly in commercial areas, to advertise the products and services that they provide, and that will be in people’s faces. I do not want to have to walk down commercial streets and find the situation again of women being in shop windows, as they are in Amsterdam.

What about street soliciting? There is no doubt from the statistics and the information that we have that street soliciting will increase, particularly among women who find that it is difficult to get into brothels—whether for health reasons or for whatever other reason. Once a regime is put in that tries to restrict people in brothels, those who cannot get into brothels will find other ways to sell their services. We will find that that will be in our faces. As we go down Willis Street, Lambton Quay, Queen Street or wherever else we go, we will find more prostitutes there, because prostitution will be legal and they will be entitled to be there.

Market forces will increase prostitution. There will be more prostitutes. Brothels will outbid each other to get business. What happens when agencies try to outbid each other? They have to compete and they have to provide a new product. Brothels will have to provide for more bizarre sexual activity, and to push the boundaries of legality. We will get into sadism, bestiality, and necrophilia. That might sound strange and far-fetched, but I can guarantee members that as market forces play out, and as brothels compete with each other to get more and more business, they will push the limits as far as they can go.

In terms of illicit material, we already know that the underage use of pornography is a real problem, and that will be pushed. People will try to provide younger and younger prostitutes, knowing that while they may get caught for doing that, they may also get away with it. There is no requirement for the production of proof of age. We have taken out of the bill the requirement that age has to be proved, and that is just an open-door invitation for underage prostitution.

There will be trafficking in women. As the number of brothels increases, and as they have to get new women and provide new activity, they will inevitably bring women in from overseas, who will either willingly or unwillingly become engaged in the industry. That is already happening. There are already vulnerable Asian women and children, and Lianne Dalziel’s bill simply tries to put a patch on a small element of that. There are plenty of other ways that that sort of thing will happen. If students are to be told that they cannot become prostitutes, there will be other ways of bringing people in under other schemes.

The warning signs are there, in the multitude of amendments before this Committee, that we have a bill that people do not consider satisfactory. It has gaping holes in it, and people are trying to bring Supplementary Order Papers in as a patchwork, in order to try to patch some of the leaks in this bill. But that patchwork will not survive. One can put as many patches as one likes on this bill, but those who want to push the market forces and to make money from prostitution—and there will certainly be people like those mentioned in the newspaper articles I have quoted who will want to do that—will find ways round that in order to earn money. We are opening a Pandora’s box here, and no amount of amendments will succeed in closing it. We are getting ourselves into serious trouble, under the false pretence that we are helping those women by changing the law. We are not helping them but are simply making it easier for people to exploit them.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I know that Larry Baldock’s next call will be his last, and I am keen to hear him. I note we have only 2 minutes until the tea break, and I do not believe it is fair for a member to have to split a 5-minute call. I seek leave for the House to adjourn 1 minute before 6 o’clock.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : In my final speech on this bill I want to address the issue of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff. I know a lot of members are hinging their final support for the vote on his particular Supplementary Order Paper. He is the Minister who said that it would be unconscionable for us to pass this bill unless there were controls to prohibit gangs and the criminal element from becoming involved in prostitution. Of course, that is occurring already. The Massage Parlours Act was supposed to provide licensing, zoning, and so on, yet the gangs have already found ways to get round that legislation. The Minister believes that his Supplementary Order Paper would somehow be adhered to by every citizen in the country, particularly by those involved in illegal activities. He believes it would solve the problem, but I contend that it would not. There is no guarantee that his Supplementary Order Paper will keep the criminal element out of prostitution and resolve the issues that are faced in New Zealand.

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

LARRY BALDOCK: It is interesting to note, first of all, that Supplementary Order Paper 83 actually has more clauses in it than the bill, because the Minister is trying to use every finger to plug the gaps so that the bill does not leak out its oozy, sewage stuff upon society. By that, I do not mean the people who are trapped in prostitution. I mean the evil institutions behind prostitution that exploit women, young men, and children.

Mr Goff is confident that his Supplementary Order Paper can resolve all the criticisms we have raised, but the penalty in that Supplementary Order Paper for operating a brothel without a licence is a measly $10,000. That $10,000 is the only piece of weaponry the police may have when trying to clamp down on the operators of illegal brothels. I suggest tonight that $10,000 is just pocket money for those who profit from the prostitution industry, and that it will not be a deterrent of any kind. I ask the Minister to explain why he has not placed more teeth in that Supplementary Order Paper, to really discourage people from engaging in illegal activities. Why does the Proceeds of Crime Act not apply to those people who would operate illegal brothels? If we can take away the assets of those who profit from the selling of drugs, why can we not take away the assets of those who would profit from the selling of women’s bodies illegally? But no, that Supplementary Order Paper is not really designed to seriously deal with the problem. It is just a vain attempt. It is like a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket, and it will not have the effect that Mr Goff hopes it will have.

Many people are concerned about local bodies having to deal with the zoning and licensing of brothels, and I have here a document—which I will seek to table later—from the Tauranga District Council, in which it has expressed its concern that there is nothing in this bill or in Supplementary Order Paper 83 that would help it to stop brothels from operating in residential areas. When the council wrote its district plan, running a brothel was not a legal activity, so the district plan does not address that problem. Therefore, a home-operated brothel with four employees could operate as of right under the Tauranga District Council’s district plan. It would not need to seek a resource consent under the Resource Management Act or anything like that, which is what Supplementary Order Paper 83 tries to do. We are desperately trying to work on the Resource Management Act to get it to work better, and we are fiddling with it in this legislation in order to try to make provision for brothel keepers to operate, while other legitimate businesses that are of benefit to society have difficulty in obtaining their consents through the Resource Management Act process.

So I urge members not to be deluded into thinking that by supporting Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper, they are sanitising the real evil that will be unleashed as a result of passing this bill.

We have also heard about the amendments that Lianne Dalziel has promoted to deal with the problem of the trafficking of women into this country, particularly under the guise of student visas. Like other speakers before me, I share the concern that nothing serious is being done about that. All that we will do is to send a girl home if she is caught working in a brothel while she is here as a student, but we will not deal with the pimp who is profiting from her exploitation. The pimp will simply see that girl sent home, and then his mates in Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, or even as far away as Russia—we have Russian women coming here already—will just send him another girl whom he can profit from and exploit, and then, when she is all used up and perhaps caught by the police, she will be sent home again. We know what will happen if this bill is passed. The police will say thank you very much, because that is one less thing they will have to work on.

I seek leave of the House to table just a few documents. I seek leave to table a letter here that makes it very clear that the Maxim Institute had nothing to do with financing Melissa Farley’s trip to New Zealand.

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

LARRY BALDOCK: I have another document here from the Tauranga District Council that expresses its concerns and difficulties with regard to Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper and the complications it will create for the council.

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

LARRY BALDOCK: I have one final document to table. It is a point-by-point rebuttal by Melissa Farley of the criticisms of her research while she was here in New Zealand.

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

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) : I seek leave to table three documents. The first document is the Preliminary Report: New Zealand Prostitution, published by Dr Melissa Farley, and the second is the , also by Dr Melissa Farley. The third document is a letter of 10 June from Colleen Winn, raising concerns about the research.

• Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I seek leave of the House to table a letter from the Catholic Women’s League, contradicting the report in the Dominion Post of 24 May that quoted Tim Barnett as saying the league had declared its allegiance to this bill, and making it very clear that the league does not support the bill.

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

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Thus far this has been an interesting debate. A number of points have been raised, and I would like to comment on a few of them. First of all, opposing this bill does not mean that one is satisfied with the status quo. I want to make that quite clear. New Zealand First has debated the issue at length, and we are not happy with the status quo, but we believe decriminalising prostitution, as this bill does, will make the current situation far worse.

I note there have been a number of amendments. There have been amendments in the name of Phil Goff, Lianne Dalziel, Stephen Franks, Dianne Yates, Gordon Copeland, Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Wayne Mapp, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh. Oh no, maybe Wayne Mapp might be Uncle Tom Cobbleigh; I am not sure about that.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Oh come on!

PETER BROWN: Where is the member’s sense of humour? This bill is being amended so much, by so many, that never in the course of human history has a bill been amended to such a degree. Let me suggest to members that all those amendments will water the bill down to some degree. Not all of them will get through, but any that do will water the bill down to such a degree that some people who are genuinely concerned about the impact of prostitution on society might vote for it. So I urge the people who think they will vote for those amendments to make the bill better to think very, very carefully. I think the amendments will water the bill down and will not change it a great deal, at all.

If this bill goes through and we decriminalise prostitution, that will be a gift to pimps—an absolute gift. The pimps will be sitting there now rubbing their hands, and thinking about how they can profit from the selling of, largely, women’s bodies—and, largely, young women’s bodies. It will also be a gift to those people who are interested in trafficking in women—an absolute gift. It will open the door for people to move young women from one area in this country to another, and, indeed, if they can import women, it will open the door to importing them and putting them into the prostitution industry.

Decriminalisation of prostitution will not control the industry in the way Tim Barnett indicated earlier that he thought it would. That is an absolute fallacy. Decriminalisation will open the door and allow the industry to expand. The industry will become a front for drug use and drug pushing, and for child prostitution. Why do I know all this? How do I know all this? It is because everywhere in the world where this industry has been liberalised, that has happened. In every single place in the world where the industry has been liberalised, those sorts of things have occurred, and I challenge any member to find any country in the world and tell me I am not speaking the truth about that. I do not believe even Tim Barnett will tell me I am not speaking the truth.

I must say the Justice and Electoral Committee’s consideration of the bill was very disappointing. I was going to use stronger words and call it a farce, but I will not go as far as that. But it was very disappointing, and I say to members that the select committee did not address the issue in a meaningful way. It was the most politicised select committee I have been on in my time at Parliament. People voted by numbers whenever they wanted to do so. They did not listen to the arguments or accept other people’s input. They just said they were there to push the bill through, so they would push it through. [Interruption] Sue Bradford queries me. New Zealand First brought up the question of advertising, but she pooh-poohed it. Now she has an amendment sitting on the Table. We have read it, and I think we will vote against it.

Stephen Franks: It might have helped if you had turned up at the relevant times.

PETER BROWN: Mr Franks, when you were chairing the meeting at the end, if we are to become critical, you were not even prepared to listen to any counterarguments. You wanted to push this bill through—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must address the Chair and must not refer to the absence of members. That is a long-standing convention in the Parliament.

PETER BROWN: I make the comment that the select committee—whether I was there or not—did not handle this bill anywhere nearly as well as most select committees operate in this Parliament.

If we push this bill through tonight we will open this “industry” so widely in this country that we will have the Daily Planet sex hotel here within a relatively short time. Now maybe that is a good thing. I think the member over there applauds that, but if it is a good thing let us be honest enough in the Chamber to say that that is what we are passing this legislation for. But we have been told the bill will contain prostitution, and will make it nice and rosy for everybody involved. It will not. We will open this country for comfort-hostessing. Does any member know what comfort-hostessing is? It occurs when business people fly into the country and request the services of young women, in particular.

Jill Pettis: For God’s sake, they can get that at home, you fool.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is totally out of order.

Hon Tony Ryall: Let’s not be common.

PETER BROWN: I think it might be too late for that, but let us not mind that. This is a serious issue.

Apart from Tim Barnett and Georgina Beyer, I have probably had more dealings with prostitutes than other members, in terms of talking to them. I have talked to prostitutes first hand over a number of years in my stevedoring and shipping days. I say—and I have said this before—that I have not yet resorted to using the services of prostitutes, but I have had friendly conversations with them. Many of them live sad lives, and I say this bill will not improve life for them. I suggest to members in all sincerity that if they doubt my word on that, they should check on what is happening in the countries where prostitution has been liberalised. Members will find Sweden is moving along the reverse course of that provided for in this bill. Dianne Yates wants to bring in the Swedish model. She is putting forward a tiny little amendment that she thinks will reverse the provisions of this bill. That is an absolute farce; it will not reverse the effect of the bill. I challenge anybody who is bringing in amendments to say whether, if they do not get their amendments through, they will vote for the bill. I bet they will vote for it. Certainly the amendments in support of this bill are just a front to push the bill through and to make it look as though prostitution is nice and cosy.

We should adopt my colleague Brent Catchpole’s bill, which is based on the Swedish model. The member over there on the Government benches shakes his head, but let me tell members that Sweden has adopted that model with huge success. France, Finland, Norway, and Denmark are looking at it, but New Zealand is going in the other way. We should look at the New South Wales model—not the Australian model, for there are states in Australia that do not believe in the liberalisation of prostitution. But New South Wales does believe in that, and is probably the capital of Australia in terms of prostitution. The industry has expanded there, and now there is a hotel complex, the Daily Planet, coming on stream. I say to the member that I believe he wants to expand the industry, and that this bill is a front to sell that in a disguised way.

I listened to Maurice Williamson, and I think Tim Barnett gave him the credit for this bill. Maurice Williamson said that this legislation is a good thing for the industry and the people working in it. Before we believe Maurice Williamson, we should look at his track record when he was formerly the Minister of Transport. If we examine his track record and if he is “Mr Success”, then let me tell members—

Clayton Cosgrove: There’s a bit of a difference.

PETER BROWN: The member is observant; there is a bit of a difference. When Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport, he had the total say there. He wants to have the say in this bill, so what the dickens will happen? I can tell members that when Maurice Williamson speaks and says we should do something, I would recommend going in the other way.

This is a sad bill for society. I believe that New Zealand First would welcome the establishment of a royal commission to look into prostitution, if the Government was so inclined.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Too kind.

PETER BROWN: Dr Cullen challenges that. If it is good enough for the Government to spend $5 million on examining seeds and the like, then it is good enough for it to spend an equivalent amount of money on looking at the lives of young women and of whomever else is enticed into prostitution. We would look at that seriously, but we will not support this bill.

TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In line with discussions that took place at the Business Committee, I seek leave at the conclusion of the debate on Parts 1 to 3, and the schedule, for voting to be on the basis of the amendments as arranged and ordered on the paper that has been circulated to members, copies of which are on the Table.

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

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification of that. I do not understand what leave is being sought to do. Could we please have some explanation?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will ask the member to explain it.

TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) : In order to try to expedite the voting in some sensible order, the Clerk’s Office has prepared a listing that has been emailed to all members today and is available here on the Table. It orders the various amendments in a rational, logical order, and, apart from the withdrawal of amendments Nos 5 and 10 from Larry Baldock, it still stands, as I understand it, as an accurate listing. Once we move to vote, it is merely trying to sort us out for when we get to vote. Once we actually move to vote, I seek agreement that we take the votes in this order.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I realise that this is a leave request, but I would ask whether it is possible for this Committee to consider first a variation, or whether it is necessary to reject that and have it re-put. If I may explain, it appears to me from canvassing people who are seeking guidance on the voting here that the prospect of running through that list will be extremely confusing, and that it was a mistake when we first decided that all the voting would be collected at the end. I would certainly like to see an opportunity for at least the movers of each motion to address, for 5 minutes between each vote, the purpose of their motions. I have been present for almost the entire part of this debate, and I have heard almost nothing addressed on the wording of these motions. There has been almost no discussion whatsoever of the technical effect of these amendments. Nearly every speech has been, in effect, a title speech, and some of these motions would be quite incompatible with others. There is every prospect that this bill might end up being quite unworkable for want of the extra few minutes that would be involved in giving, say, one or two speeches between each vote.

I realise that that is by way of a change to what was intended and to what the whips had agreed to, but it seems to me, in talking to people whom I regard as careful and diligent MPs, that they are very, very confused indeed about the interrelationship of the various amendments in this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I suggest to the member that he could seek leave to have that done, because these amendments have actually been on the Table for some considerable time, and members would have had ample opportunity to read them. So the member is free to seek leave if he wishes for his course of action to be followed.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) : I do so seek leave, if I may. Perhaps I can seek the leave after Mr Barnett’s seeking of leave has been considered, because I would like it to be worded in a way that did not open it up to a completely open-ended debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought by the honourable member Tim Barnett. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) : I seek leave to amend the original terms on which we decided to amalgamate all the votes into one process to the extent that each amendment be preceded, if the mover so wishes, by an opportunity to explain the effect of the amendment and, in so doing, to relate it to the other amendments that would be inconsistent with it. I do that because I believe that it would assist the members who will come to the Chamber to vote and who will not have been listening properly to the debate, to vote in an intelligent way, and may assist the Committee to make sure that it does not end up with an Act it has to revisit.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The members have already given leave for the motion on the way in which the voting should be done, as put by the honourable Tim Barnett. The honourable member Stephen Franks is seeking a variation to that, as he has explained. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe it is appropriate for the Chair to give a brief explanation in these circumstances, not for members to explain their own amendments.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): What I will do, when I go through the amendments, is explain them clearly and concisely.

JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland ) : I move, That the question be now put.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I seek the leave of the Committee, now that we are about to proceed to vote, that we cease voting at 10 p.m. I seek that leave simply because I think it would be good to do that rather than to have a very late night this evening.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

The question now is that Parts 1 to 3 and the schedules stand part, and we have a number of amendments. The first is in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert a new clause 2A, which provides that the Act expires 5 years after the day on which it receives the royal assent unless a majority of the House resolves otherwise.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clause 2A be agreed to:

to insert, after clause 2, the following new clause:

2AThis Act expires 5 years after the day on which it receives the royal assent unless a majority of the House of Representatives resolves otherwise.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As Mr Copeland’s amendment actually envisages a greater restriction on advertising, it is not the same as the amendment that has just been passed. It expands the prohibition even further. Surely it cannot be out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, we have agreed to restrictions. It is then inconsistent to prohibit it. Therefore, I am now moving to an amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I can see what you are saying, but it seems just as logical to argue the counterfactual—that is to say, an amendment that further moves in the direction of restriction is in fact consistent with the amendment that has just been passed but extends it even further. I cannot see that you can say that it is in conflict with it or that it goes towards prohibition. It does not go towards an absolute prohibition. It simply moves further in the direction of restriction.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I am the sole judge of relevance, and I have ruled it out of order. I now go to Dr Wayne Mapp’s typescript amendment to the Hon Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 91, which is quite complicated. It inserts reference in clause 6D to Dr Mapp’s proposed new clause 6CB and reinstates the provisions of clause 6D(2).

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave of the Committee for my Supplementary Order Paper to be put to the vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is free to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. I now come back to the amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are obviously in for a long evening, and I point out that I am in a position where I have been genuinely mistaken. I supported the previous amendment, thinking that I could go on to support the amendment you have ruled out of order. I think it is very, very important that when you put a particular amendment, you clearly spell out, prior to the voting, what the consequential effect will be on voting for that amendment. So the consequential effect of voting for, say, Supplementary Order Paper 90 would be that Supplementary Order Paper 82 is then out of order. I can assure the Committee—and I state this clearly and publicly—that I would not have supported Supplementary Order Paper 90 if I had been aware of that. I realise what has happened has happened, but it would be helpful, just to assist us, if the Chair would seek the appropriate advice, and advise members in that way accordingly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for bringing that to my attention. I will certainly take note of that. We now come back to the amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp. His transcript amendments seek to amend the Hon Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 91, to insert reference in clause 6D to Dr Mapp’s proposed new clause 6CB and reinstate the provisions of clause 6D(2). This replaces Dr Mapp’s Supplementary Order Paper 68 amendment to clause 6D. However, if the Hon Phil Goff’s new clause 6D is not agreed to, then Dr Mapp’s original amendment to clause 6D, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68, will stand.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It seems that what you have just said there is almost exactly what we just talked about in relation to Mr Copeland’s amendment. You have just said that if Mr Goff’s amendment does not pass, then it reverts back. This is exactly what we were just talking about.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, this is quite a different thing altogether.

• The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to the amendment to clause 6D set out on Supplementary Order paper 91 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to:

to insert in new clause 6D, set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 91, after the words “section 6C”, the words “or section 6CB”; and

to insert in new clause 6D, set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 91, after subclause (1), the following subclause:

(1A) Sections 6C and 6CB do not limit any other powers that a territorial authority has under any other enactment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of Larry Baldock to remove the decriminalisation of brothel-keeping and put in place certain other measures has been withdrawn by the proposer.

We come now to the amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp on Supplementary Order Paper 68 giving territorial authorities power to make by-laws to restrict soliciting and putting in place offence provisions and the necessary police powers.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert new clauses 6CA to 6CC and 6DA to 6DC and new cross headings be agreed to.