Brown Peter: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6175] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Thus far this has been an interesting debate. A number of points have been raised and I would like to comment on a few of them. First of all opposing this bill does not mean that one is satisfied with the status quo. I want to make that quite clear. New Zealand First has debated the issue at length and we are not happy with the status quo but we believe decriminalising prostitution as this bill does will make the current situation far worse.  
I note there have been a number of amendments. There have been amendments in the name of Phil Goff Lianne Dalziel Stephen Franks Dianne Yates Gordon Copeland Sue Bradford Sue Kedgley Wayne Mapp and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh. Oh no maybe Wayne Mapp might be Uncle Tom Cobbleigh; I am not sure about that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Oh come on! 
PETER BROWN 
: Where is the member’s sense of humour? This bill is being amended so much by so many that never in the course of human history has a bill been amended to such a degree. Let me suggest to members that all those amendments will water the bill down to some degree. Not all of them will get through but any that do will water the bill down to such a degree that some people who are genuinely concerned about the impact of prostitution on society might vote for it. So I urge the people who think they will vote for those amendments to make the bill better to think very very carefully. I think the amendments will water the bill down and will not change it a great deal at all.  
If this bill goes through and we decriminalise prostitution that will be a gift to pimps—an absolute gift. The pimps will be sitting there now rubbing their hands and thinking about how they can profit from the selling of largely women’s bodies—and largely young women’s bodies. It will also be a gift to those people who are interested in trafficking in women—an absolute gift. It will open the door for people to move young women from one area in this country to another and indeed if they can import women it will open the door to importing them and putting them into the prostitution industry.  
Decriminalisation of prostitution will not control the industry in the way Tim Barnett indicated earlier that he thought it would. That is an absolute fallacy. Decriminalisation will open the door and allow the industry to expand. The industry will become a front for drug use and drug pushing and for child prostitution. Why do I know all this? How do I know all this? It is because everywhere in the world where this industry has been liberalised that has happened. In every single place in the world where the industry has been liberalised those sorts of things have occurred and I challenge any member to find any country in the world and tell me I am not speaking the truth about that. I do not believe even Tim Barnett will tell me I am not speaking the truth.  
I must say the Justice and Electoral Committee’s consideration of the bill was very disappointing. I was going to use stronger words and call it a farce but I will not go as far as that. But it was very disappointing and I say to members that the select committee did not address the issue in a meaningful way. It was the most politicised select committee I have been on in my time at Parliament. People voted by numbers whenever they wanted to do so. They did not listen to the arguments or accept other people’s input. They just said they were there to push the bill through so they would push it through. [ 
Interruption 
] Sue Bradford queries me. New Zealand First brought up the question of advertising but she pooh-poohed it. Now she has an amendment sitting on the Table. We have read it and I think we will vote against it.  
Stephen Franks 
: It might have helped if you had turned up at the relevant times. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Franks when you were chairing the meeting at the end if we are to become critical you were not even prepared to listen to any counterarguments. You wanted to push this bill through— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must address the Chair and must not refer to the absence of members. That is a long-standing convention in the Parliament. 
PETER BROWN 
: I make the comment that the select committee—whether I was there or not—did not handle this bill anywhere nearly as well as most select committees operate in this Parliament.  
If we push this bill through tonight we will open this “industry” so widely in this country that we will have the Daily Planet sex hotel here within a relatively short time. Now maybe that is a good thing. I think the member over there applauds that but if it is a good thing let us be honest enough in the Chamber to say that that is what we are passing this legislation for. But we have been told the bill will contain prostitution and will make it nice and rosy for everybody involved. It will not. We will open this country for comfort-hostessing. Does any member know what comfort-hostessing is? It occurs when business people fly into the country and request the services of young women in particular. 
Jill Pettis 
: For God’s sake they can get that at home you fool. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is totally out of order. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Let’s not be common. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think it might be too late for that but let us not mind that. This is a serious issue.  
Apart from Tim Barnett and Georgina Beyer I have probably had more dealings with prostitutes than other members in terms of talking to them. I have talked to prostitutes first hand over a number of years in my stevedoring and shipping days. I say—and I have said this before—that I have not yet resorted to using the services of prostitutes but I have had friendly conversations with them. Many of them live sad lives and I say this bill will not improve life for them. I suggest to members in all sincerity that if they doubt my word on that they should check on what is happening in the countries where prostitution has been liberalised. Members will find Sweden is moving along the reverse course of that provided for in this bill. Dianne Yates wants to bring in the Swedish model. She is putting forward a tiny little amendment that she thinks will reverse the provisions of this bill. That is an absolute farce; it will not reverse the effect of the bill. I challenge anybody who is bringing in amendments to say whether if they do not get their amendments through they will vote for the bill. I bet they will vote for it. Certainly the amendments in support of this bill are just a front to push the bill through and to make it look as though prostitution is nice and cosy.  
We should adopt my colleague Brent Catchpole’s bill which is based on the Swedish model. The member over there on the Government benches shakes his head but let me tell members that Sweden has adopted that model with huge success. France Finland Norway and Denmark are looking at it but New Zealand is going in the other way. We should look at the New South Wales model—not the Australian model for there are states in Australia that do not believe in the liberalisation of prostitution. But New South Wales does believe in that and is probably the capital of Australia in terms of prostitution. The industry has expanded there and now there is a hotel complex the Daily Planet coming on stream. I say to the member that I believe he wants to expand the industry and that this bill is a front to sell that in a disguised way.  
I listened to Maurice Williamson and I think Tim Barnett gave him the credit for this bill. Maurice Williamson said that this legislation is a good thing for the industry and the people working in it. Before we believe Maurice Williamson we should look at his track record when he was formerly the Minister of Transport. If we examine his track record and if he is “Mr Success” then let me tell members— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: There’s a bit of a difference. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is observant; there is a bit of a difference. When Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport he had the total say there. He wants to have the say in this bill so what the dickens will happen? I can tell members that when Maurice Williamson speaks and says we should do something I would recommend going in the other way.  
This is a sad bill for society. I believe that New Zealand First would welcome the establishment of a royal commission to look into prostitution if the Government was so inclined. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Too kind. 
PETER BROWN 
: Dr Cullen challenges that. If it is good enough for the Government to spend $5 million on examining seeds and the like then it is good enough for it to spend an equivalent amount of money on looking at the lives of young women and of whomever else is enticed into prostitution. We would look at that seriously but we will not support this bill.