Smith Nick: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6587] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have opposed this bill from day one and I will continue to do so because it is based on the flawed premise of harm reduction. The best way that this Parliament can minimise the harm of prostitution is to minimise prostitution—full stop end of story. A bill that has this Parliament making prostitution a legitimate career choice will mean more prostitutes and more harm. The member who promoted this bill said that we should support it on the basis that the current law has flaws. The member is mistaken. We should support this bill only if we are confident that it will make things better than they are now and I do not have that confidence. The member also said that we should judge it on the basis of whether it will be good for sex workers. I say that no we should judge it on whether it will be good for New Zealand society. 
I know that passions in this sort of debate run strong but I also have to say that I find the attack by the member of Parliament who promoted this bill on the churches of New Zealand to be inexcusable. His statement on the front page of the Christchurch  
Press 
 that our churches have been ignorant and arrogant is not only false but totally unnecessary. It seems ironic to me that those who preach tolerance are so intolerant of those who do not share their liberal views. We then had the “feds under the bed” claim from Mr Barnett. His claims that there was a subversive campaign against this bill by some fundamentalist Christian churches from America were laughable. That was a sort of modern-day version of reverse McCarthyism. 
I have news for Mr Barnett: this bill is opposed by ordinary New Zealanders who reject the anti-family politically correct liberal agenda of this current Government and who want a Government that will stand up for basic decency and for standards. This bill is an affront to the values of ordinary New Zealanders. They are not judgemental puritans; they are common-sense people who know right from wrong. Prostitution is wrong because it cheapens the most intimate human relationship by turning it into just another commercial transaction. I tell Mr Barnett that having sex is not the same as buying a beer or a latte. It is not the same as paying for a haircut or for some drycleaning. Sex is special and it should not be for sale. 
I represent a party that supports enterprise and markets but I also know the limits of what should be commercially traded and what should not. This Parliament says that it is wrong to trade in babies or orphans—and nor should we; human life is too valuable for that. We also have laws that state it is wrong to have commercial trading in body parts and fluids such as blood—we have a very unique blood service—and that is with good reason. Those who argue that prostitution is a victimless crime must resolve the moral dilemma of why selling blood a kidney or some other body part in life or in death is illegal. As a Parliament we say that those things are too sensitive to sell and we should say that sex is as well. Consenting adults may do as they wish but sex should be an act of free will. That is why this Parliament puts such a high penalty on rape. We have high respect for human intimacy. Prostitution is nothing more than paid rape. 
No amount of regulation and no amount of occupational health and safety inspection will make prostitution safe or healthy. I challenge this Parliament after reducing the drinking age to 18 to ask how many people in New Zealand are drinking under the age of 18? Based on that experience what confidence should this Parliament have that it will be any more effective than that in ensuring that prostitution is limited to those over the age of 18? Those who promote this bill have a naive view about the capacity of the State to enforce the detailed provisions of a law such as this. Those promoting this bill are taking us down the road towards normalising prostitution. We more or less had that assumption from the member who is promoting the bill today. He seems to live in a moral vacuum where marriage de facto relationships homosexual sex and prostitution are just all the same. They are not and long may this Parliament hold out and say that they are not. 
The argument that prostitution will exist whether or not Parliament condones it is not the right way for this Parliament to write law. We outlaw theft domestic violence murder and assault knowing with every one of those that we will not be able to eliminate them. The real question that every member of this House must ask this evening is whether this new law would serve this nation better or whether the nation would be better without these changes. The current law is not perfect. Personally I would make it tougher. It is an anomaly that a prostitute offering sex for money commits an offence whereas the client does not. That is why I voted in the Committee stage to make both of those offences and I am disappointed that that was not adopted. I am strongly of the view that despite all the support for this bill it will do more harm than good. We need only to look at the experience across the Tasman in Australia to know that there has been a substantive growth in both illegal and legal prostitution since Australia has gone down a similar road. 
The most significant part of this bill is the laws that it repeals. I want to bring those into focus in this debate this evening. Section 147 of the Crimes Act makes it a criminal offence to run a brothel. That goes under this law. I say the law of the land should make it illegal to run a brothel. Section 148 of that Act which is repealed by this legislation makes it an offence to live on the earnings of prostitution. That also goes. If we vote for this bill tonight it will be perfectly legitimate to live on the proceeds of prostitution. With this legislation section 26 of the Summary Offences Act goes—that is it allows soliciting. Any person will be able to legally offer his or her body for prostitution. Let us not fudge that. It will become quite lawful anywhere—at any time or at any place—for people to offer sex for money. It will be quite lawful to go door to door. That is wrong; that is not the sort of society that this Parliament wants in our country. The international research is compelling. The facts are plain and the argument is simple. This bill will do more harm than good. 
May I conclude by thanking many of the organisations and individuals who put in cogent arguments for the defeat of this bill. I commend Sandra Coney for more of her insightful writing the Maxim Institute the churches of New Zealand and organisations like ECPAT and others. May good reason prevail and may this Parliament reject the proposition that prostitution is just normal and should be legitimised. New Zealand deserves better than that. I urge this Parliament to reject this bill and to stand for a better New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: New Zealand First is to have two speeches each for 5 minutes. The first speaker is Mr Brent Catchpole.