Mapp Wayne: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5211] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I have decided to take a call on the title because I want to set out my general position on this issue. It would be of use perhaps to know that I chaired the committee for 18 months. I heard all of the submissions. I was part of the trip when members of the committee went to Australia to Victoria and New South Wales. Of course like every other member of the House I have had hundreds of letters and I have endeavoured to reply to each and every one of them. As I heard the evidence—and members have to recognise that we do not look at this issue in vacuum; there is already a fabric of legislation that exists in this country. For instance prostitution is not a crime in New Zealand. Often that is not understood but it is a fact. In 1978 this Parliament passed the Massage Parlours Act. Many of us would recognise that what goes on behind some of those closed doors would amount to prostitution. 
Dail Jones 
: It wasn’t the intention then. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It was not the intention then although I must say I have spoken to some members of Parliament who were present in the Parliament at the time and asked them why they voted for it. I suspect that Mr Jones was not one of those who voted for it. I asked those members what they contemplated they were doing. Most of the people I have spoken to said that they understood that in reality a degree of prostitution would take place in massage parlours. We have a rather odd situation in New Zealand where we have a law that in de facto terms—not in de jure terms—is quite similar to the law of Victoria. I believe that only some small changes are needed in the existing law. 
So I make it clear that I am opposed to the overall focus of this bill because I do not believe we should be legalising brothels or living off the earnings or procuring. All of those are serious offences under the Crimes Act and I believe they should remain so. I do not believe that when people think of brothels they imagine that that would encompass a prostitute’s own apartment or indeed an apartment rented for the purpose. 
I believe we have an opportunity essentially to change the law in such a way that fits contemporary practice by the police. Every day of the week police cars will drive past prostitutes who are soliciting and ignore them unless it is blatant offensive or something of that nature. Similarly we know for a fact that prostitutes who use their own apartment or another apartment for the purposes of prostitution are not prosecuted. We heard evidence that prostitutes can go down to their local police station be photographed and those details supplied to the local newspapers and then those newspapers will accept advertisements that—how can I put it—euphemistically offer sexual services. But anyone who reads those advertisements knows full well the intent behind them. 
 There is an informal arrangement although it is not illegal whereby there is a degree of facilitation by the New Zealand Police by the newspapers and by the men and women involved in prostitution—for it encompasses both genders—whereby it is controlled. So the point of the amendments that I have moved is that they work alongside the amendments opposed by Mr Gordon Copeland. Essentially the amendments regularise current practice by changing the law. I believe that the country would see that as a reasonable measure. 
I have polled the North Shore electorate and they support these changes. We ran a scientific telephone poll where we phoned 150 residents taken randomly from the electorate roll. We asked three questions. The first question was whether people thought soliciting should be a crime. The answer was fifty-fifty. The second question was whether people thought approaching prostitutes should be a crime. An overwhelming 80 people opposed this. The final question was whether brothels should be legalised. Surprisingly the answer was 60-40 in favour of that. So there is a degree of intent to liberalise. Certainly the one thing that could be concluded—apart from a smallish minority in the community—is that there is no will at all to significantly tighten up the law. For instance the amendments proposed by Dianne Yates in particular and Mark Alexander would not have broad community consent. 
Peter Brown 
: How do you know that? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Because I polled the electorate by way of a scientific poll. If the member had cared to listen to what I just said he would have heard that. This is one of those issues where we all get the right to exercise our own conscience. But I think on an issue like this we have an obligation and a duty to consult the electorates. We should not be here simply to exercise our own conscience on an issue of this nature. We should be attempting to recognise community views. From what I saw I do not believe that these modest changes that I am proposing would change the character of the way things are done at the moment. It would essentially be a confirmatory step and I do not expect that prostitution would dramatically increase.