Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3610] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I say at the beginning that the aims of this bill are commendable and I do not oppose it because of any lack of concern towards prostitutes or on any moral basis—though my conscience does guide me in this issue as it is supposed to—but I oppose this bill primarily as a legislator because I believe that it is bad law and it will not deliver the results that the supporters of this bill promise. In fact I do not believe it is possible to achieve the worthy aims of this bill by decriminalising or legalising prostitution in any form at all. I believe initially that it may be possible to convince one’s conscience that this bill should be supported because of a genuine desire to help those trapped in an awful lifestyle but I believe that many are beginning to have second thoughts as they realise the implications of this so-called reform bill.  
This is not a “Prostitution Reform Bill”; it is a “Society Reform Bill”. It is designed to reform society’s attitude to prostitution not prostitutes’ attitude to society. The sponsor of the bill has said himself that decriminalisation simply changes the status of prostitution. It would remove the criminal-related stigma of prostitution and I do not believe that it is healthy for us to change the status of something that every one of us in this Chamber believes is unhealthy and would not want our children to be involved in.  
Members of such groups as the Catholic Women’s League which the sponsor claimed in his booklet was supporting the bill have changed their minds also. In their letter of 13 February they make it clear that they are opposed and deeply concerned about it as associated Catholic women also are. Those of us who are Christians deeply regret the bigoted remarks that were sent in an email today. We disassociate ourselves from them because they are not worthy of the Catholic or Christian name and we do apologise for them. Cardinal Williams would be in opposition to it also as he has expressed his opposition to this bill.  
My first point in opposing this bill is one I believe really emphasises the difficulty that supporters of this bill face. I agree with Tim Barnett—and he will be happy to know that—when he says that this bill is built on a decriminalisation model. That model implicitly rejects the position that prostitution per se needs to be or indeed can be controlled and instead focuses on controlling the genuine harm that can arise in association with prostitution. That is a true statement but let us be clear about it. The supporters of this bill do not argue for control in any way shape or form. In fact they categorically state that prostitution cannot be controlled. Their idea therefore is to give up trying to mitigate its bad effects by law and instead decriminalise and hope that everything will work out OK. I cannot submit to that philosophy.  
Again and I quote the sponsor’s own words of explanation in his briefing paper  
Delivering Decriminalisation 
 when he says: “Legalisation involves a licensing regime which would need to be developed administered and resourced. Experience worldwide”—and these are Tim Barnett’s own words—“is such that a regime inevitably generates an unlicensed sector.” Those are not my words though I do agree with them because that is the evidence we find all around the world. We try to decriminalise and legalise in order to get rid of the criminal element only to find that it springs up again in parallel and does more damage than we had in the very beginning.  
I hope the members of this House will remember these words when they are thinking about supporting the second reading of this bill and then moving amendments to introduce licensing and zoning because they will be changing this bill from a decriminalised model to a legalised model which the supporters of the bill themselves have said is a disaster. If members visit Victoria in Australia they will discover that its legislation of this type has not worked and I have not heard one prostitute or member of the Prostitutes Collective suggest that we should follow that example.  
Why does the law need to be reformed? Tim Barnett says that the present laws and the environment they create act as significant barriers for workers to exit the industry. I cannot accept that; it is an incredibly twisted argument to make. The sponsor is suggesting that the law is an impediment to anyone exiting the industry. First let us make it clear that the stated intention of this bill is supposed to be to discourage anyone from entering prostitution and to make it easier for workers to leave. If prostitution is so bad—I do not hear people saying that it is a worthy occupation—and I am in full agreement with the sponsor on this matter it would be normal in a democratic lawful society to express that by making the activity illegal and to send a message to anyone in our society that this is not the kind of employment we want to see encouraged.  
But no the supporters of this bill want us to believe that by decriminalising prostitution fewer people will be tempted to join the activity and more will leave. I think that that is absolute rubbish and that is why I shall oppose this bill. There is no doubt in my mind that decriminalisation will be seen by the vast majority of New Zealanders—especially the young people—as a legitimising of it. It will become easier to enter what supporters call “the industry” and it will be harder to leave. A young university student struggling with finances will become more vulnerable. After all we are talking in this bill of not just decriminalising individual prostitutes and their activities but of allowing pimping. So a man or woman can seek out a young attractive woman and encourage persuade and lure her to allow that man or woman to pimp on her life and have the opportunity to make money out of selling her body. It is a matter of the innocence purity health and future of such young people. I mean young people because if this law manages to keep the age limit at 18 years that age is still so young to be enduring the horrors of prostitution as a lifestyle.  
One of the scariest things I read in the sponsor’s booklet was his answer to the question of how the bill helps street workers. I quote: “Some sex workers are working to support a drug habit. These workers are often younger disadvantaged and work on the street rather than in brothels. Under the current system these out of all sex workers are the most dependent upon the goodwill of individual police officers.” So we are going to help them by making it OK for them to sell themselves on the street. Is that the kind of New Zealand we want for those poor young people who are disadvantaged? I do not think for a minute that that is what the sponsor of this bill wants but it is the logical conclusion. We are now trying to pass a law so that young drug addicts selling themselves for sex on the streets can have a good relationship with the police. Do we want these young people on the streets or do we want to help them to get a better life?  
The bill claims that it will protect young people—those under 18—from prostitution but the fact is that it is already illegal for someone under 18 to be involved in prostitution. It is illegal now. If we are concerned about under-age prostitution then let us strengthen the Crimes Act but this bill will not give greater protection for those under 18.  
I can explain it no better than by a letter that was sent to me by ECPAT New Zealand Inc. who have said: “One view being touted is that the proposed bill will better protect children. However section 149A of the Crimes Act 1961 already criminalises under-18-year-olds for prostitution. Despite almost weekly exposure in  
Truth 
 magazine of children believed to be in the 12 to 14-year age bracket on various New Zealand streets being picked up by so-called punters almost no action is taken by police to prosecute these abusers. If the police have so few resources to currently prosecute the exploiters of 12 to 14-year-old children it is naive to believe that the police will offer children greater protection in a deregulated and decriminalised environment.”  
There is simply no evidence anywhere in the world that decriminalising has led to a reduction in prostitution or has reduced child prostitution. The aims of the bill may be admirable but we must ask ourselves whether this legislation can achieve those aims. No fuzzy feelings no do-gooder motivation and no liberal wishful thinking: this is a conscience vote and I appeal to the members of this House to listen to their consciences. The society of New Zealand has a right to expect that this law will result in a healthier and better society not just for the 8000 prostitutes who are estimated to be trapped in that kind of work but also for the families across this nation who must raise their children in the environment that we create and legitimise by the laws we pass in this House. Again I say that this is not a “Prostitution Reform Bill”; it is a “Society Reform Bill”.