Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3851] 
2.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his comments reported in the  
Dominion Post 
 on 21 February 2003 that “The [Prostitution Reform] Bill is laissez faire at the moment; it provides for no controls … The police will tell you that gangs are involved in a big way and providing prostitution alongside other criminal activities they are involved in. I think it would be unconscionable not to give the police the power in the prostitution business to exclude those people who are patently unsuitable to be involved in it.”; if so has he discussed these concerns with the Minister of Police? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes and yes. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree that the intended purpose of the Massage Parlours Act was to regulate prostitution and prevent the involvement of unsuitable operators and can he explain what the difference would be between the controls the Massage Parlour Act imposes and the amendments he intends to introduce in the Committee stage of the Prostitution Reform Bill? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have reflected on this. This is a difficult question. I have had some difficulty with it. It is a members’ conscience bill and the Minister cannot be asked for legal opinions and what have you about this particular matter. That question was too wide and asked for a legal opinion on a different Act. I say to the member that there has to be another way. He may want to have another go at another question but I must stress this has to be about something that is within the Minister’s portfolio. 
Judith Collins 
: If the Minister is concerned about the big way in which gangs are currently involved in the prostitution industry how can the public have any confidence that these gangs will not be able to operate with even greater freedom in the laissez-faire environment that it fails to control? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is true that gangs are acting frequently in the sex industry at the moment with far too little controls on what they are doing. I have said that the bill as it currently stands provides for no controls to eliminate criminal elements from owning or operating brothels. That is why I have foreshadowed as a member rather than as a Minister the Supplementary Order Paper that will give the police the power to exclude criminal elements from owning or operating places of prostitution. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer as Minister not about his own Supplementary Order Paper which of course is in his own name. It is a rather difficult one. The Clerk’s office let the question through—I had no participation in this matter and I support its action in doing this—but I want to say it is a very difficult area and it must concentrate on what the Minister’s responsibilities are. 
Peter Brown 
: How does the Minister reconcile his position by saying on the one hand it is imperative we have controls and licensing of brothel owners and zoning for where places of prostitution can be located yet on the other hand he says he will vote for the bill anyway—is that not having a bob each way? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: All of us when we look at legislation have to decide whether there is a way in which that legislation can be improved. I have looked at it I have made that decision I have announced that decision to the House. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister see any case in a licensing system for brothel owners or managers given that serious criminals or gang members can easily put a front-person in to run the place when they are in fact behind the scenes? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am aware of that potential which is why the definition of those who own or operate places of prostitution will be designed to cover those people operating behind the facade of some other individual. 
Martin Gallagher 
: In your capacity as the Minister what do you think would be necessary to incorporate in legislation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think anything. The member cannot bring me into the debate. This is the difficulty we are getting into. It has to be a question about the Minister’s portfolio. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What would be necessary to incorporate in legislation to give police the power to exclude criminal elements from owning or operating brothels or having anything else to do with them? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Clearly it would be necessary to have at least a low-level licensing regime under which those with convictions for serious sexual violent arms drug or gang-related offences could be legally prohibited from operating a place of prostitution. 
Larry Baldock 
: If the Minister admits that gangs have been able to get involved in a big way in the prostitution business under the strict licensing regime set up by the Massage Parlours Act what advice has the Minister received that this will not occur under any other regime that is intended to be set up under the Prostitution Reform Bill? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is true that there are problems in the current system. The current system with regard to massage parlours of course does not cover other areas that can be properly defined as places of prostitution and in a sense what I am proposing therefore goes wider than the current restrictions on actual prostitution in the community today. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister trying to give his views a cloak of respectability by saying that he is seeking to act against gangs when in fact he and his colleague the Minister of Police have had every chance to act against gangs but are soft on lawlessness—which is why gangs are flourishing in this country? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That statement is patently incorrect. In fact the strong legislation that exists on gangs today albeit passed by a National Government was heavily promoted by the present Minister of Police and myself from the position of being in Opposition where we drove that National Government to do something about it. 
Larry Baldock 
: Has the Minister received advice that would disagree with the sponsor of the Prostitution Reform Bill that the Resource Management Act is sufficient to give protection to communities who may object to brothels with neon lights blazing being set up in their neighbourhoods; and if he does disagree with this why would he support the bill even if his amendments did not pass— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister has no responsibility for the Resource Management Act. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question related to advice that the Minister has received. It is not a question of whether he was responsible for a particular piece of legislation. My colleague’s question asked whether he had received advice that the provisions of that legislation might actually be in contradiction to some of the provisions of the bill. I assume that the advice my colleague was referring to would be advice from his department. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It can only be advice in connection with his own ministerial responsibilities. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have indeed received advice that the Resource Management Act focuses on environmental rather than social factors and a necessary safeguard would be to have an explicit position with regard to zoning to avoid there being places of prostitution in clearly socially inappropriate areas. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table a newspaper article that clearly states that the Minister supports amendments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Larry Baldock 
: I seek leave to table a document from the General Assembly of the United Nations which clearly outlines that prostitution is an affront to the dignity and worth of the human person and endangers the welfare of the individual. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.