Catchpole Brent: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6168] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tim Barnett is naive if he believes that the decriminalisation of prostitution will not see an increase in the number of people entering the industry. Decriminalising prostitution and putting it on the same footing as other occupations and businesses is simply legitimising the entire industry and it is sending the wrong message out to the young and the vulnerable who will see prostitution as a genuine career choice. That would be a tragedy.  
Tim Barnett would have us believe that the purpose of this bill is to protect the health and well-being of prostitutes and the public as a whole to safeguard the human rights of sex workers and to protect them from exploitation. That sounds well and good but the decriminalisation of prostitution in the manner that this bill attempts also legitimises the peripheral businesses along with it; in other words drugs trafficking and pimping—everything that goes with it. The question must be asked: is this bill’s ultimate intention to legitimise those peripheral businesses and to decriminalise the trafficking and exploitation of young women and drugs because both of those also have serious health problems associated with them? Prostitution is the hiring of humans to act like sexualised puppets. Prostitution always includes the dehumanisation objectification and fetishisation of women and children. Decriminalisation makes prostitution no safer or less humiliating for those in it. It simply puts the State in the role of pimp collecting taxes. Collecting taxes is what this Government is good at and this bill adds pimping to the Government’s credentials. In other words they will be living off the earnings of prostitutes.  
Let us have a look at some of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward. Dianne Yates makes an attempt at criminalising the client. That is commendable—it is part of a bill that New Zealand First has in the ballot—but that particular Supplementary Order Paper is nothing more than a band-aid because it will not work under this bill. The bill has clauses that will completely negate her Supplementary Order Paper. Let us look at Lianne Dalziel’s Supplementary Order Paper. The Minister of Immigration would have us believe that she will control the immigration aspect of this bill and make it illegal for immigrants and student immigrants to work as prostitutes. This Minister has already demonstrated that she is unable to control or even correctly identify student immigrants. How on earth does this Minister think that she will control prostitution under this bill? How will the Minister prevent students from entering prostitution to pay for their fees? Maybe she will wait until New Zealand First points it out to her then again she will ignore the warnings until prostitution is so rife that she can no longer ignore the issue. Then she will claim she was on to it all along. Wayne Mapp has an amendment also. Wayne Mapp was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and he tells me that his amendment is designed to bring the bill back into line with the select committee’s views and recommendations. If that is correct then it begs the question: why was the select committee’s review not included and why has this bill deviated so much from those views that it has attracted so many amendments?  
Since the introduction of this bill in September 2000 my New Zealand First colleague Peter Brown has carried out an enormous amount of work. He has spoken to many interest groups and individuals some of whom have been for this bill and some against. Peter Brown has spoken to them all. As a result of that work I am pleased and proud to be able to sponsor a member’s bill called the Prostitution (Client Liability and Prostitute Care) Bill. The bill is in the ballot and is waiting to be drawn. That bill is based on the Swedish law model which was introduced in 1999. Much of the work and research in that bill has been undertaken by Peter Brown. Under the provisions in my bill the client will be prosecuted. My bill counteracts the harmful effects of prostitution by making it a criminal offence to be a client in an act of prostitution. Accompanying the prohibition with associated measures directed at restricting advertising among other things it provides support mechanisms that will help prostitutes to get out of the industry. The bill will make sure that prostitutes have all the support they need when they want to leave the industry and to encourage them to leave. New Zealand First’s bill which is in the ballot intends to change the whole face of prostitution.  
I conclude by saying that I oppose the Prostitution Reform Bill. I oppose the amendments that go with it because they are trying to water down the whole effect of the bill and detract from the real issue which is that legitimising prostitution only legitimises the industries that build up around prostitution and that is the wrong thing to do. This bill goes about it the wrong way. We propose to put up our bill to replace it.