Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5235] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will commence some discussion on aspects of advertising and the promotion of safer sex. First of all I will refer to comments made by Sue Bradford at the end of her speech when she said she was broken-hearted about a 39-year old woman who would be arrested on the street for prostitution; in actual fact that woman would be arrested for soliciting. My heart would break for the fact that a 39-year old woman is on the street having to solicit and find a living in that kind of environment. If that is the kind of society we want to have in New Zealand then this bill is the answer for those who want to promote that. I believe we should be doing all we can to help a 39-year old woman get off the street. She should not have to dehumanise herself through that kind of activity. 
Sue Bradford talked about the advertising of commercial sexual services and she said that it has just become apparent to her that this bill could lead to a proliferation of some pretty awful things. Although I do not wish to malign the motives of Sue Bradford in any way—because I actually believe she is trying to do the best thing for prostitutes—what she says reveals a very very important thing about the process we are going through. Two select committees have already spent an incredible amount of time considering and deliberating on this bill and most of the amendments that are now on the Table in this Committee have been discussed by those select committees as ways and means of mitigating the effects of this legislation going through. 
 The fact that at this late stage the select committee has to acknowledge—or at least one member of the select committee has to acknowledge—that we did not think about the possibilities simply reveals that that is the nature of the difficulty of the task ahead of us. I believe that we will continue to discover things in this legislation that we did not think about—the ramifications upon society—if we seek to go forward. 
Sue Bradford 
: There’s a review process. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: The review process may be just a little bit too late. It may be shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. If we look at what has happened overseas once this industry is given an inch it takes a mile and it is very difficult to pull it back. In particular if our police are under-resourced it will be more difficult to try to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. 
The Committee has been discussing safe sex and I want to comment on the remarks that Tim Barnett made earlier about safe sex. Safe sex is one of the important purposes of this bill. The bill has the stated aims of safeguarding the human rights of sex workers protecting them from exploitation promoting the welfare and occupational safety and health of sex workers and being conducive to public health. 
I will mention public health in a moment because we need to remember the public at large. This is not meant to be about just the sexual health of sex workers. As they interact frequently with other members of the public the broader public health issues must be considered as well. Tim Barnett mentioned before when he was giving an explanation about why this bill is so necessary that a prostitute may for the payment of additional money be tempted to conduct unsafe sex. She may be tempted to disregard the use of a condom and engage in unsafe sex. I have looked in the bill to see how on earth that could be prevented and I cannot see anywhere where that could be prevented. How on earth will we monitor— 
Stephen Franks 
: There’s nothing. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: There is nothing. The bill requires a brothel-keeper to take all reasonable steps but he or she is not going to be present in the room when the activity is taking place. If a prostitute decides for additional money that she will take the risk of unsafe sex she will do so. We will not hire an army of health workers to run around the country and peep through windows— 
Stephen Franks 
: OSH will be there. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I think that is a pretty vain hope somehow. Then the Occupational Safety and Health Service people will be arrested for peeping through the window to try to keep an eye on what is going on. It is just not possible to promote safe sex. 
I refer to something that the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective said in its statements that I think is very revealing. It stated: “Those who assume that because money changes hands for sex so must sexually transmittable infections money does not transmit sexually transmittable infections unsafe sex does. In New Zealand sex workers have clearly not contributed to the spread of HIV.” 
That is a statement from the Prostitutes Collective. They say: “In fact sex workers have introduced thousands of men to the mechanics of using condoms safely.” So if it can be done without a law change what on earth are we discussing here? In fact the Prostitutes Collective goes on to state: “Sex workers are motivated to look after their sexual health. A study of 303 Christchurch sex workers published recently found that the vast majority of sex workers from all sectors of the sex industry have regular sexual health checkups and practise safe sex.” 
We could not get anything more reliable than that. That is a statement from the Prostitutes Collective. Yet this bill is supposed to be promoting safe sex within the prostitution industry. By its own statement it already exists and there is nothing that I can see in this bill that would take them any further. Ultimately the decision about safe-sex practices is left with the prostitute. Our health services our sexually transmitted disease clinics and our public hospitals are all there to serve the needs of all New Zealanders. I have spoken with those who work in hospital health clinics and sexually transmitted disease clinics and they regularly see prostitutes. They make no bones about giving them the full range of services that are available. Therefore it is entirely up to the individual to make the decision as to whether he or she attends. 
 The idea that having a poster promoting safe sex on the wall of a brothel will have an influence on either the client or the prostitute is absolutely absurd. They already know about HIV and the kinds of sexually transmitted diseases that there are and it is upon them to take care of that issue. 
Let me talk about condom use. Much has been said about the fact that prostitutes have to conceal condoms and cannot use them and that if condoms are in the room where prostitution is taking place the police will use them for prosecution. I have here a search warrant for the Summary Proceedings Act which was also included in the Prostitutes Collective submission. It states that the following things: namely business records documents computer equipment bank account documentation money and sex paraphernalia in the forms of condoms and sex tools related to the offence of brothel keeping can be taken as evidence for conviction. The reason the police may take those things has nothing to do with the act of prostitution. It has to do with the act of brothel-keeping and pimping. The pimp or the brothel-keeper not the prostitute will be prosecuted with that evidence. Of course in the case of massage parlours they are not meant to be operating fully fledged brothels. They are supposed to be operating massage parlours where independent workers are able to make their own decisions within the confines of the rooms of that massage parlour. 
I make one final comment about the issue of public health because this bill is supposed to promote not just the individual health of the prostitute but also public health. I talked earlier about the fact that by prostitutes’ own accounts 60 to 70 percent of their clients are married men. No matter how many precautions a prostitute takes in order to conduct herself safely and to have regular check-ups she can only be as sexually safe as her last client. That is the reality of the business she is involved in. Her next client can have no satisfaction that she will not pass on a disease. The bill makes it very clear that prostitutes cannot use that certificate to say they are safe. Therefore this bill is not promoting public health at all. It is actually opening the door to the potential for the further spread of sexually transmitted diseases. 
We already have a problem in this country. HIV may be monitored very well but the instances of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases are skyrocketing in some places. This bill will not help in that area. 
John Carter 
: Partially through prostitution. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: It is partially through prostitution as the member says and it is partially through the rampant sexual involvement of our young people without adequate knowledge or restraint but the point is that this bill is not promoting public health because there is an element of risk inherent within the industry itself and the product it is trying to sell.