Yates Dianne: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5222] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I understand that we are now speaking on the parts in the bill. I find it a little difficult from those lists that Tim Barnett just read out in that perhaps I should not be speaking until the third slot because my subject was the third item on his list. Although he sought leave for that I am not quite sure what we are supposed to do in terms of speaking order. Nevertheless I will take the call because I have some amendments. The amendments are that we omit clause 5 which reads “No contract for the provision of or arranging the provision of commercial sexual services is illegal or void on public policy or other similar grounds.” and that we insert new clause 9CA “Being client in act of prostitution” which reads: Every person who is a client in an act of prostitution by any person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to—(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months; or (b) a fine not exceeding $5000.” That means that in my amendment the onus in prostitution moves from the prostitute on to the client. It means that this is an amendment in line with what they have done in Sweden. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is too much talking going on. It is discourteous to the member who is speaking. It is also an affront to the Committee. I ask all members that unless it is absolutely necessary could they please take their conversations outside in the foyer. 
DIANNE YATES 
: This is an amendment in line with what is called the Swedish legislation and it means that the onus goes on the person who is requiring the services of a prostitute rather than on the prostitute. It is based on the law of supply and demand. If we do away with the demand we will do away with the supply. Many people have said that they do not agree with prostitution; it is a matter of how we deal with it. New Zealand has signed up to United Nations agreements where we have said that prostitution is not a good thing particularly in relation to women. The question is: what do we do about it? Our agreements with the United Nations say that we should be trying to get rid of prostitution. 
The arguments against my amendment have been that it would drive prostitution underground. My argument is that it is underground and will be underground. As we have heard already from Mr Catchpole if there are 8000 men using prostitutes and most of them are married they will not openly admit that they are using prostitutes so it already is underground. I do not think the other arguments against my amendments hold water. A very good paper was presented to members from ECPAT New Zealand the “end child prostitution” group which has 10 arguments against this legislation. It points out that prostitution is not a desirable social phenomenon and it is an obstacle in the ongoing development towards equality between men and women which is a stance that I uphold. I do not think prostitution should be a legitimate occupation which is basically what this bill makes it. 
I have said before in this Chamber that as a teacher largely of women I do not think we should have prostitution as a legal occupation. As Harry Duynhoven has asked in this Chamber are we really serious about this? Will we have a New Zealand Qualifications Authority qualification in prostitution? I have also looked at some of the accident compensation implications. I understand and I have sought an opinion that one would not get accident compensation if one happened to get pregnant as a work-related “accident” under prostitution but one may be able to claim if one becomes infertile as a result of one’s occupation which is a really strange thing. 
There are a lot of issues around the bill that many people have not seen. I heard someone this afternoon saying that many people have not discussed the issue. I see that some women’s organisations have said nationally that they agree with this. I have spoken at many local branches of these organisations and I found that even the heads of those organisations have not consulted or engaged in a discussion with their branches. I notice also that we have been circulated by the Federation of Graduate Women with many questions to think about before we vote 
. 
I notice that the position of the National Council of Women is somewhat ambivalent when one reads through its newsletter on the whole issue. It is not wholeheartedly in favour of this legislation. I would point out too that ECPAT New Zealand has said in particular that where soliciting has been legalised—which is what we are actually doing in this bill—prostitution has increased. Where there is increased prostitution there is increased child prostitution despite the provisions that have been put in this bill. If we are serious about getting rid of prostitution then I ask members to vote for my amendment.