Yates Dianne: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4455] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I think that time is serving to my disadvantage here but I would like to start by saying that I am really interested in— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DIANNE YATES 
: I wish to speak in the debate on the title of what is now called the Prostitution Reform Bill which I think could probably be more aptly called the “Clients Protection Bill”. I note that the promoter of the bill Tim Barnett several times at the beginning of this debate referred to the bill as being about sex workers or as the “Sex Workers Bill” and herein is the problem. 
The Human Rights Commission prepared a paper on this bill in which the commission while not giving an opinion laid out the thinking behind relevant human rights instruments. Attitudes towards prostitution and this bill can be based on one of two basic premises. One is as Tim Barnett has said that prostitutes are workers—sex workers—and as such should be treated as any other worker and in this case the bill goes only part of the way. Although it purports to have health measures and protections and rights for the workers I consider that it benefits the clients rather than the prostitutes. I am sure any prostitutes with AIDS or who are pregnant will lose their job and I doubt that they will qualify for Accident Compensation Corporation payments. 
The other premise is that prostitution is as Mr Barnett said himself in his speech evil—it is something that people will not go into willingly and something that they want to get out of; I think he gave an average time of about 3 years—and that prostitution is exploitation of a group in society. The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women states in article 6: “State Parties shall take all appropriate measures including legislation to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.” The UN in this context uses the term “exploitation”. There is an international debate on how we prevent the exploitation of women and prostitutes in general. I do not believe this bill provides for the reform of prostitution in New Zealand as stated in the title which is why if we get that far I have put forward an amendment that could be called the “Swedish amendment” because it is based on the law in Sweden. It basically says let us get rid of the prosecution of prostitutes and let us get rid of the anomalies of prostitution in the law and in this country. Let us not decriminalise or even criminalise prostitution or make prostitution a legitimised occupation. It says let us prosecute the clients. Let us get rid of the demand and we will not need prostitutes and we will comply with the UN declaration about exploitation. 
Arguments about prostitution being always with us and being the oldest profession do not wash. Stealing will always be with us yet we do not decriminalise it and there is no suggestion we should do so. Arguments about driving prostitution underground do not wash. It is the clients who are underground and secretive rather than the prostitutes and I believe we should concentrate on the clients. 
I have spent a good time of my life teaching and I did not teach girls in particular to make a living off their backs but trained them for what are now legitimate occupations. I ask if we decriminalise prostitution are we going to pay spouses for sex also? We have trouble even trying to convince people that they should be paid or recognised for housework. I do not believe we should continue to exploit women and I do not believe we should totally commercialise society.