Worth Richard: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Worth Richard: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4463] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I was not going to speak in the course of this debate. I have a clear position that I will vote against this bill so I hope it tumbles at the first hurdle which is the debate on the title. But I cannot sit here idly and listen to the comments that the Minister of Justice made in a speech that I believe was riddled with legal error. In case others might think that there is merit in the legal comments that he has offered to the Committee I would seek to correct that and briefly deal with three points. The first point that the Minister made is fair enough in itself and it is a response to what others have said. The suggestion is that there is something in this bill that will deal with the problem of child prostitution and he was accurate in his comments to say that that is an issue on which this Parliament has already passed judgment in a condemnatory way and that this bill will do nothing to deal with that particular issue. The law is in place to deal well I would argue with this hazard of child prostitution. 
In this debate we are involved in talking about the ability of Parliament to legislate moral values. That is a fraught exercise on any view of it. I have always felt that the most that a Parliament can do is provide indicators of the type of behaviour that we would seek to encourage. When we get to a position as we are in this bill of seeking to legislate moral values I am certain we will fail in that quest. 
The second issue the Minister spoke about which is directly referable to Supplementary Order Paper 70 that the Minister is promoting is the by-law provision. Some members seated opposite will immediately be able to see the error of that proposal. They will be people who are in the Chamber tonight who know about the processes of local government and the interrelationship between the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act. An integral part of the Minister’s proposal is that there be interim by-law control. The explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper contemplates that those by-laws will have a short-term effect and in due time will be replaced by provisions in a district plan. Those who know this area of planning law will know that a local authority may immediately in terms of the relevant planning legislation by way of plan change introduce interim prohibitions. That in itself would be if a local authority were so minded sufficient to deal with the planning issues that arise in the context of what is seen to be unsavoury activity damaging to the public interest. 
The third aspect that the Minister has pushed hard at members of this Committee relates to the involvement of criminal gangs in this area. There is no doubt about it such gangs do exist. But last June this Minister pushed through changes to the Crimes Act in a new section 98A that sufficiently dealt with the issue of participation in organised criminal groups. So I would say for those who are undecided in the way that they might vote on this bill that what the Minister has proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 70 achieves nothing at all. I hope members might reflect on that. It is not appropriate I suggest for the Minister to offer flawed legal advice to the Committee that may have as its objective an attempt to woo support for his position because his position is wholly and utterly flawed.