Hutchison Paul: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5229] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I would like to draw attention to three issues pertaining to the bill. Firstly with regard to its purpose the bill states that that is to decriminalise prostitution and create a framework that is conducive to public health. I have great concern that because this is a member’s bill it does not have the appropriate resourcing and Government support services around it to ensure that that will indeed happen. 
If one does go to the experience of the Swedes in the 1970s when they carried out decriminalisation one finds that at the same time that that was implemented enormous effort was also put into a social and economic reform programme. I note that the commentary on the bill states: “Laws were tightened around procurement to discourage exploitation and penalties introduced for procuring women less than 20 years old. Outreach programmes were established to reduce the incidence of prostitution by social means with government support for accommodation money emotional support and alternative employment. The measures resulted in a 40 percent reduction in prostitution in the 1980s.” That certainly sounds like an impressive reduction but with this bill we do not have all the extra Government resourcing that should be implicit with it being passed. 
One of the hugely worrying things is the situation relating to street soliciting and just decriminalising that. If ever there is a group of prostitutes who are vulnerable it is those ones and it is very unlikely that this bill will help them. I cannot see anything in it that will do so. Those prostitutes are the very ones who are unable to get a job in a massage parlour or with an escort agency and it certainly does require huge support mechanisms with real resourcing to enable them to be constructively employed in other ways. I think that is one of the major gaps behind this bill. Prostitutes who work in massage parlours or escort agencies are not nearly as vulnerable as those who are down on Hunters Corner or Karangahape Road. They are often young men and women who have come from extremely dysfunctional backgrounds who have drug and alcohol problems and who need urgent attention to address those issues. I feel that introducing this bill without the extra resources that occurred with the Swedish model in the 1970s will create extra difficulties for those young people. 
The second area that I want to talk about is what has actually happened with the public health measures in New Zealand over the last 10 to 15 years. I would like to pay tribute to the Prostitutes Collective the AIDS Foundation and the ministry in terms of the efforts they have made to ensure that the safe-sex message was inculcated in New Zealand. Indeed the evidence shows that we have very low morbidity in terms of sexually transmitted diseases at this stage. I do not believe that those efforts will be diminished by decriminalising prostitution at all. In fact in many respects the young people who are working on the streets are only likely to be marginalised. 
Lastly I want to focus on the amendment that I have proposed regarding the review of the operation of this legislation and related matters. Again I must compliment Tim Barnett on ensuring that there will be a review of this legislation. Clearly if one thing is needed with fairly adventurous legislation it is to ensure that it is monitored carefully—qualitatively—so that realistic interventions can be made in response to deficits in it. I think so much is unknown about the decriminalisation model that a review of the operation of the legislation is all-important. I agree with that entirely but I am concerned about the make-up of the review committee on this legislation. I think that 12 people are far too many. I am sure that that will diminish the committee’s ability to focus on the real issues but that is only a minor point. 
However because of the significance and the unknown factors relating to this bill I have added an amendment to Part 1 to insert after clause 2 the following new clause 2A: “This Act expires 5 years after the day in which it receives the royal assent unless a majority of the House of Representatives resolves otherwise.” 
I believe that if this legislation is passed because it is so significant and has so many unknown consequences it would be only right and proper—and I am not in favour of this bill—for there to be a serious analysis of where it stands in 5 years’ time. There should be an endorsement by a majority of Parliament for it to continue. Obviously that occasion would allow for appropriate amendments to take place. I think that because the social consequences of this bill and the experience of the decriminalisation models overseas are so unknown and so unsure that would at least provide a very salutary mechanism to ensure that we did not continue with inappropriate legislation. If anything it could increase the quality of the legislation at that time.