Goff Phil: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Goff Phil: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4461] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill and to foreshadow Supplementary Order Paper 70 in my name which I believe addresses some shortcomings and some necessary protections for society as a whole in the bill as reported back from the select committee. 
I made a decision some time ago that no purpose would be served in making a criminal out of a person who works as a sex worker. I have heard no argument in the House during this debate as to why somebody who works as a sex worker ought to be a criminal—the more so of course given the fact that the person who is the client of that sex worker commits no criminal offence. It was a law drafted by men in favour of men at a time when only women were regarded as working as prostitutes. 
There are evils associated with prostitution. I have to say that I do not regard prostitution as normal. I cannot understand why people would work in such an industry other than maybe out of necessity if they had a drug addiction and were financing that addiction. The evils I am talking about surrounding prostitution are the evils of coercion and the evils of child prostitution and young people as prostitutes. We have addressed those evils in legislation already passed through the House in the last 2 years. 
I draw the attention of the Committee to the Crimes Amendment Act because when I mentioned it to some members they were not aware of the changes that occurred under it. That was an Act I passed as Minister of Justice in 2001. The Act made it an offence to be the client of a prostitute who was under the age of 18. That in combination with what is in this bill provides appropriate protection against young people both men and women being exploited at that age. That also enabled us to comply with the ILO Convention Concerning the Worst Forms of Child Labour. 
The other evil associated with prostitution is the evil of coercion. Last year this House made trafficking or smuggling of people an offence. The sentence for that is up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $500000. There was no way this House could have made it more clear that it was against the use of coercion to force people into a trade such as prostitution. Another problem with prostitution as it currently stands—that is that soliciting is illegal—is that we have tended to force that particular type of work into the shadows. As a result too often prostitutes fall under the control of organised criminal gangs. I am not talking hypothetically; I am talking about what happens right now. 
This House can pretend that prostitution is illegal. We all know that it exists. One can pick up the  
Dominion Post  
any day of the week and see a full page of advertisements for sex workers. We also know from the police submission to the select committee that more often than not criminal gangs are involved with prostitution. Having prostitution as a criminal offence is more likely to encourage that outcome than decriminalising the soliciting of services by sex workers. 
My amendments are designed to do two things. Firstly they are designed to empower territorial local authorities if they wish to pass by-laws to prevent places of prostitution being established in areas where plainly it is inappropriate for them to be and that is largely in residential areas but members might consider that areas adjacent to preschools or schools are also inappropriate. It is important that the local authorities have that power. That power as set out on my Supplementary Order Paper would expire 2 years after commencement because the advice I have from Local Government New Zealand is that that is the time period necessary for local authorities to amend their district plans to restrict the location of places of prostitution. I believe that any neighbourhood has the right to keep places of prostitution out of its area. There are commercial areas where prostitution may exist and obviously that would not cause any offence to neighbours; but to have legislation that would enable places of prostitution to be located in the midst of neighbourhoods is quite inappropriate. 
The second power I have set out on my Supplementary Order Paper is the power the police need to keep people with serious criminal convictions—convictions relating to violence sexual offences drugs arms and gang-related offences—out of running prostitution. We have in this country laws that state that if a person wants to sell a second-hand car he or she has to be a person of a suitable character. It would be plainly inappropriate to regulate for people in these sorts of occupations but we are trying to get away from saying that the occupation of prostitution is one that is quite appropriate to place in the hands of the criminal underworld. That is why my Supplementary Order Paper sets out the offences. People convicted of them would be prevented from being able to legally operate a place of prostitution. The police say that they need that power to ensure such people do not work in the industry. If a person operating a place of prostitution is convicted of violence or drug offences the chances are that such a person would use coercion against the people who may be working for him or her. As demonstrated in public opinion polls the community although divided in opinion about the matter of decriminalisation would be more comfortable about a law decriminalising the industry if it provided the protections I have set out on my Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that those unsuitable to be operating places of prostitution are kept out of it and if it ensured that territorial local authorities could prohibit places of prostitution from being established in areas where it is inappropriate to have them.