Barnett Tim: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Barnett Tim: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3607] 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Prostitution Reform Bill be now read a second time 
. Many thought that this day would never come. Those who 20 years ago started to make the link between public law and public health and concluded that making criminals out of prostitutes was simply the wrong policy seemed out on the edge of debate. So did those in this House—Maurice Williamson Judith Tizard Katherine O’Regan Laila Harré Jenny Shipley Sue Bradford and many others—who championed law reform and did not get thanked by many for doing so. Those who fought against this bill even getting to a select committee certainly hoped that this day would never come. Those who thought that last year’s general election result had killed this bill hoped this day would never come but as we all know it takes much to stop a good idea whose time has come.  
This bill was last debated here over 2 years ago at its first reading on 8 November 2000. By 87 votes to 21 the House agreed to send it to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee took two messages from that vote: first there was something wrong with the current law that needed to be sorted; second the model of law reform proposed in the bill decriminalisation was a good starting point for rigorous committee examination. In summary the committee took that brief and in the report before us today has delivered on it handsomely.  
First we looked to the sex industry in New Zealand as it is now. Then we examined the current law its relevance to that industry and how the proposed law would improve or worsen things. We agreed that the current law was untenable. It is based on a nonsense rewarding the strong and punishing the weak. It inflates the risks of prostitution while punishing those who seek positive solutions. Thus only 2 months ago the police raided a brothel in Wellington and used the presence of condoms there to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in order to prove a brothel-keeping charge.  
The current law is also unacceptably liable to police discretion. The number of convictions under the current law especially for soliciting reduced by two-thirds while this bill has been before Parliament. What clearer indication could there be that the current law is a gesture not effective and not a law and order tool? 
The select committee then moved to look at the decriminalisation model. I must put on record that few words are as confusing as “decriminalisation” and “legalisation”. They are so readily open to misinterpretation.  
In the area of prostitution law designing a decriminalisation bill is a four-stage process. The first stage in decriminalisation is to identify the risks from the activity. Coercion sexually transmitted infections becoming trapped in the industry all are examples of the risks associated with prostitution.  
The second stage in decriminalisation involves identifying which of those risks can realistically be dealt with by law and which require public education improved services or whatever. For example people offended by brothel signage need at the end of the day to have a legal solution to their complaints. Whereas people who are trapped in the sex industry need community support a sympathetic benefit system and positive public attitudes in order to exit and to move on with their lives.  
The third stage in decriminalisation involves separating the risks that do not need a special legal solution from those that need special prostitution-focused law. Thus the issue of sex workers aged 16 to 18 is not dealt with by the general law whereas employment conditions are.  
The fourth stage in decriminalisation is to create that new prostitution law that is in essence the bill before members today. It directly addresses potential harm and risks unique to prostitution. If it were in force sex workers would work in an environment in which both brothel owners and individual workers would have a legal obligation to take all practical steps to promote the use of safer-sex devices. Sex workers would if aged between 16 and 18 be safe from prosecution but their clients and others managing them would be liable to a prison term of up to 7 years. Sex workers would be able to activate law with increased penalties for coercive behaviour by those in power over them. They would also have the right at any time to withdraw from a contract to provide a sexual service if they felt the situation was getting threatening.  
The select committee was made very aware of the blocks stopping people leaving the sex industry. We amended the bill to state that the refusal to work as a sex worker would not affect anyone’s entitlement to State benefits. We also added to the bill the establishment of a review committee to report in between 3 and 5 years. One of the jobs of that committee will be to examine how the Government and the community can best deter people from entering prostitution and make it easy for them to leave it if they choose.  
One of the problems faced by the select committee was when New South Wales reformed its prostitution law in 1995 to a similar decriminalisation model; it set up no evaluation system. The facts have been hard to come by but it has enabled bizarre lies to be told. New Zealand law reform must be and will be better than that. The ending of the effective criminalisation of prostitution in New Zealand would also expose the sex industry to the range of law including the Resource Management Act the Employment Relations Act the Summary Offences Act and the occupational health and safety legislation which governs the rest of society. Through changing the basic legal status of prostitution this bill strips away many of the barriers that prevent the benign effect of general law easing the risks in prostitution.  
Some members have claimed that the select committee substantially amended the bill away from that model. That is not the case. Many changes were made—most were to make sure the bill worked better. The significant changes without exception made the bill more attractive to the vast majority of members. We added a clear statement that the existence of the bill is not an endorsement or moral sanction for prostitution. We removed the defence of reasonableness for clients of under 18-year-old workers who might claim that they thought the sex worker was over 18. We widened the responsibilities for provision of safe-sex materials. We granted local bodies the right to ban offensive sex industry signage. Also we set up a review committee to monitor how the bill works and report on how best to stop people entering and help them to exit from the sex industry. At the Committee stage we will consider further amendments; some may float changes on limited licensing and zoning and depending on their details I think they could be supported.  
Analysis of significant public debates in New Zealand in the last quarter century unearths some remarkably repetitive patterns. Many law reforms such as stronger human rights law the provision of needle exchanges abortion the decriminalisation of homosexual activity have had a public health focus. All have been vociferously opposed by the same sorts of people using the same sorts of arguments and the same loose relationship with the truth. In spite of what they claimed on every one of those issues those reforms have not led to disaster. Indeed those measures and others have all enabled people to lead more complete less risky lives and have enhanced their individual freedom. The Prostitution Reform Bill does just that.  
Some speaking in this debate will make outrageous and utterly wrong claims about the impact of law change and prostitution in New South Wales. That evidence is a pack of lies. Fellow members of Parliament I believe that the select committee has done the job this House required of it on the bill. The current law is unacceptable. The proposed law before us tonight is workable and justifiable. Vote against the bill tonight and the current victims of prostitution the workers being coerced those needing the protection of our general workplace laws those looking for a way out of the industry will wait another generation for fair law. Their future is in members’ hands.