Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6173] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 In my final speech on this bill I want to address the issue of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff. I know a lot of members are hinging their final support for the vote on his particular Supplementary Order Paper. He is the Minister who said that it would be unconscionable for us to pass this bill unless there were controls to prohibit gangs and the criminal element from becoming involved in prostitution. Of course that is occurring already. The Massage Parlours Act was supposed to provide licensing zoning and so on yet the gangs have already found ways to get round that legislation. The Minister believes that his Supplementary Order Paper would somehow be adhered to by every citizen in the country particularly by those involved in illegal activities. He believes it would solve the problem but I contend that it would not. There is no guarantee that his Supplementary Order Paper will keep the criminal element out of prostitution and resolve the issues that are faced in New Zealand. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: It is interesting to note first of all that Supplementary Order Paper 83 actually has more clauses in it than the bill because the Minister is trying to use every finger to plug the gaps so that the bill does not leak out its oozy sewage stuff upon society. By that I do not mean the people who are trapped in prostitution. I mean the evil institutions behind prostitution that exploit women young men and children.  
Mr Goff is confident that his Supplementary Order Paper can resolve all the criticisms we have raised but the penalty in that Supplementary Order Paper for operating a brothel without a licence is a measly $10000. That $10000 is the only piece of weaponry the police may have when trying to clamp down on the operators of illegal brothels. I suggest tonight that $10000 is just pocket money for those who profit from the prostitution industry and that it will not be a deterrent of any kind. I ask the Minister to explain why he has not placed more teeth in that Supplementary Order Paper to really discourage people from engaging in illegal activities. Why does the Proceeds of Crime Act not apply to those people who would operate illegal brothels? If we can take away the assets of those who profit from the selling of drugs why can we not take away the assets of those who would profit from the selling of women’s bodies illegally? But no that Supplementary Order Paper is not really designed to seriously deal with the problem. It is just a vain attempt. It is like a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and it will not have the effect that Mr Goff hopes it will have.  
Many people are concerned about local bodies having to deal with the zoning and licensing of brothels and I have here a document—which I will seek to table later—from the Tauranga District Council in which it has expressed its concern that there is nothing in this bill or in Supplementary Order Paper 83 that would help it to stop brothels from operating in residential areas. When the council wrote its district plan running a brothel was not a legal activity so the district plan does not address that problem. Therefore a home-operated brothel with four employees could operate as of right under the Tauranga District Council’s district plan. It would not need to seek a resource consent under the Resource Management Act or anything like that which is what Supplementary Order Paper 83 tries to do. We are desperately trying to work on the Resource Management Act to get it to work better and we are fiddling with it in this legislation in order to try to make provision for brothel keepers to operate while other legitimate businesses that are of benefit to society have difficulty in obtaining their consents through the Resource Management Act process.  
So I urge members not to be deluded into thinking that by supporting Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper they are sanitising the real evil that will be unleashed as a result of passing this bill.  
We have also heard about the amendments that Lianne Dalziel has promoted to deal with the problem of the trafficking of women into this country particularly under the guise of student visas. Like other speakers before me I share the concern that nothing serious is being done about that. All that we will do is to send a girl home if she is caught working in a brothel while she is here as a student but we will not deal with the pimp who is profiting from her exploitation. The pimp will simply see that girl sent home and then his mates in Thailand the Philippines Korea or even as far away as Russia—we have Russian women coming here already—will just send him another girl whom he can profit from and exploit and then when she is all used up and perhaps caught by the police she will be sent home again. We know what will happen if this bill is passed. The police will say thank you very much because that is one less thing they will have to work on.  
I seek leave of the House to table just a few documents. I seek leave to table a letter here that makes it very clear that the Maxim Institute had nothing to do with financing Melissa Farley’s trip to New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I have another document here from the Tauranga District Council that expresses its concerns and difficulties with regard to Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper and the complications it will create for the council. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I have one final document to table. It is a point-by-point rebuttal by Melissa Farley of the criticisms of her research while she was here in New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.