Yates Dianne: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3614] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I find myself in a strange position. As a radical feminist I am in the same camp as Sandra Coney in being opposed to this bill in its present form yet I am also in the same camp on this bill as many conservative people in this House. I do not believe that prostitution should be a legitimate occupation in this country and I say it does not need to be. This is a conscience vote and I very much value women and people generally. I believe that prostitution degrades women who are the majority of prostitutes.  
I believe we have come a long way since Jane Austen wrote her novels when marriage was basically legitimised prostitution and a way to earn a meal ticket. A high school teacher in Hamilton recently said to me that she had convinced her female students that they could be economically independent and this bill will put us back by decriminalising prostitution or strictly speaking soliciting. People say that prostitution is the oldest profession and that I am not facing reality. But stealing is an old profession and we are not looking at ways of decriminalising stealing murder or other crimes. It seems to me that when it is women’s bodies that are for sale that is OK. I have talked to many men and asked them about decriminalisation. When I asked whether they thought it is a good idea they said yes. Then when I asked whether it would be a good idea for their wife daughter sister or son to become a prostitute they said oh no. If it is not good enough for one’s wife daughter or son to be a prostitute then as a lawmaker and an MP I say that is not good enough for anybody else’s wife daughter son sister or brother.  
I have not had one letter phone call or email to me in my electorate office or here in Wellington from a Hamilton person asking me to vote for this bill and I have had very many communications from people against the bill. The local branches of the National Council of Women Business and Professional Women Zonta International Altrusa International and of other women’s groups in Hamilton have not petitioned me to vote for this bill but I have had very strong letters from researchers of the industry and from people such as ECPAT New Zealand urging me to vote against it. The people from the Prostitutes Collective who lobbied me came from Tauranga not from my electorate in Hamilton East.  
This legislation is supposed to protect prostitutes but I believe it will rather protect brothels brothel-keepers and their clients. It will mostly protect the clients by providing nice clean brothels so that clients can go home to their wives undetected as to where they have spent the night. The legislation is supposed to protect prostitutes’ health but I believe it is more likely the legislation will protect prostitutes’ clients. If a prostitute has HIV we can bet she is put out of the business and will probably be prosecuted if she knowingly continues to work. What job protection will she have? Will she receive accident compensation for work-related injuries if she contracts that disease?  
I wish to give notice that I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that I wish to bring forward as an amendment if we get to the Committee stage. It will get rid of the anomalies and double standards in prostitution law. This Supplementary Order Paper is based on Swedish law and it will prosecute the client for soliciting. The present law prosecutes the prostitute. My Supplementary Order Paper based on the principle of caveat emptor—let the buyer beware which works in most other contracts—is the one that I believe should prevail. It will get rid of the anomalies and prosecute the clients. It will get rid of the double standards that exist. I have been told by the Swedish members of Parliament with whom I have been in contact that such a system works in Sweden. Critics say it works because prostitutes leave Sweden. I do not really mind if some people do want to leave New Zealand but I believe we should protect as has been said women young people and those who may be involved in the industry in this country. I do not wish New Zealand to become the Bangkok of the South Pacific. I believe that my amendment will do away with demand and in doing away with demand we do away with supply.  
There will be some other amendments that I would call Nimby amendments where people will be saying that as long as we have a law that means there is no soliciting in their backyard—in their neighbourhood near their local school or near their house—it will be OK. Those sorts of amendments come from people who are happy for something to go on if they can turn their back on it. As I said before I find myself really believing—this is a conscience vote and one has to lie straight in one’s bed at night—that I will vote against this bill.