Simpson Scott: Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1924. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I rise to speak in the second reading of the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill in my capacity as the current chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I want to acknowledge and thank the Hon Annette King for her very detailed thoughtful and good analysis of the history of this piece of legislation and its long march and journey through the Parliament of New Zealand. I think the Hon Annette King made a very good point about now being the time for Parliament to bring this matter to an end and to encourage and in fact invite the current Auckland Council if it wishes to pass the by-law that it so clearly can should it wish to do so.About 25 years ago I was manager of a business called Protector Safety. It had a branch in Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe in Manukau City as it was then. I can assure members that even that long ago we as local business people were having to contend with the issues of street prostitution and particularly the issues that related to tidying up the mess that was there every morning as we opened up the business for a day’s trading. We had to sort of clear away the goings-on from the night before. So I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the business folk of Hunters Corner and other parts of South Auckland where street prostitution has been without doubt an ongoing issue for many many years.But as the Hon Annette King has so clearly pointed out the reality is that after years of deliberation after years of getting advice after years of consultation and after years of hearing from every kind of expert possible on these matters we as a committee came to the very clear decision and the conclusion that in fact Auckland Council already has the power to create a by-law should it so wish. Indeed other councils around the country have done so—Hamilton City Council has been mentioned—and before the amalgamation of the Auckland super-city Rodney District Council had in fact passed its own legislation which under the rules of amalgamation and the way Auckland City has been set up actually stand in place today.The Local Government and Environment Committee concluded that it was absolutely possible for Auckland Council to regulate street prostitution should it so wish and that if it were to do so it would not be in any kind of contravention of or inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or indeed the Prostitution Reform Act which has been cited as a reason by those people who would want this Parliament to make special legislation on this matter. They think that it may in some way be an inhibitor or a roadblock. In fact it is not; the advice we have had is very clear that it is not. It is very possible for Auckland City to do so if it wishes in a way that is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and not inconsistent with the Prostitution Reform Act.The Local Government Act 2002 specifically allows local authorities to make by-laws to protect the public from nuisance; protect promote and maintain public health and safety; minimise potential for offensive behaviour in public; and regulate trading in public places. Under each of those heads there is more than sufficient scope for Auckland City should it wish to pursue a by-law in this area. In fact this very day representatives of Auckland Council appeared before the Health Committee to tell us about by-laws it had made to regulate solaria and sunbed operations in Auckland City. It strikes me that Auckland City has the capacity—and in fact the history—to regulate by by-laws all manner of behaviour and business and human activity. It seems to be able to do it with great gusto and great enthusiasm on a whole range of other subjects. Why it has chosen not to do so on this matter defies my understanding.Many of the complaints about street prostitution relate specifically to issues relating to noise to littering and to slow-moving vehicles which is usually referred to as kerbcrawling and of course they relate to issues relating to disorderly behaviour. These are actually all matters that are able to be dealt with under the existing by-laws that the Auckland Council has available to it.After all this time after all this history the select committee of the 51st Parliament came to a unanimous conclusion that this bill should not be passed. The Hon Annette King made the very good point that if that was not the case and in fact if this Parliament did pass this piece of local legislation then we would be inundated with requests from all other local territorial authorities seeking us to pass the same type of legislation in a way that I think would be a gross misuse of this Parliament’s time and resources particularly given that the opportunity for by-laws already exists.So we come now to the 51st Parliament nearly 10 years on from the time when the first iteration of this bill was introduced by the Hon George Hawkins all those years ago. It is time I think for this House to support the recommendations of the 51st Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Committee and support the recommendation of the committee passed unanimously that this bill not proceed. That is the course of action that I commend to the House and I do so with confidence that it will be supported by the vast majority of members across the House. I commend the committee’s report and its recommendation to the House.