Fairbrother Russell: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5216] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of this bill and particularly of its title. I consider that in debating this topic we must be careful that we do not deal in sounds instead of sense in caprice instead of reason and in darkness instead of light. There can be no argument as to the fact that for the majority of New Zealanders prostitution is immoral. But because an activity is immoral is not in itself a sufficient reason to make that activity illegal. We can think of adultery of promiscuous consenting sex and of charging people in need the maximum price when the supplier can afford to charge them less than that. So what may be immoral is not always illegal. 
What then is the morality of making the activities associated with prostitution illegal? It is drawing a long bow to say that the acts associated with prostitution are harmful to other members of society. Do we therefore justify making this activity illegal because it offends our morality? Or to put it another way is the preservation of an existing morality itself a value that justifies the use of coercion? I say “coercion” because we are dealing here with a criminal law. Criminal law works on the pain and pleasure principle—the principles analysed by the utilitarian school of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The theory of criminal punishment is that the punishment of an offender often and severely enough will make the individual turn toward pleasure and thus modify his or her behaviour to avoid the consequences of painful enforcement. 
Clearly the present system is not working because the scaremongering figures I have heard this afternoon quoted by opponents of this bill would see a huge industry of immorality teetering on the edge of moral and social anarchy. Yet not one of the opponents of the bill has taken moves before this bill came to the House to seek to increase any enforcement penalties. Clearly the opponents of the bill either do not have evidence that the immorality of prostitution and its associated activities are out of control or they believe that the status quo is the best of a bad job. 
Let us talk sense instead of sounds. Sense tells us that if there is a problem that can be controlled by criminal sanction then we would welcome the evidence on which to make a rational decision. Clause 9N of the bill provides us with the opportunity to make a rational decision. The Prostitution Law Review Committee is empowered under this bill to gather the evidence and to place it before this House to enable us to bring in considered legislation. That legislation may be to strengthen the laws against prostitution but equally—and more probably—it may be to bring in a rational set of decriminalisation allowing prostitution to continue for those who favour that immoral activity because it affects the activities of those who are not involved with it very little if at all. 
Let us talk reason and not caprice. It is a simple fact that the overwhelming majority of the many submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the bill believed decriminalisation would be a positive step for the community good. To argue against that is to argue against the evidence. Let us talk light instead of darkness. If we are to analyse this problem let us get away from the scaremongering and the quoting of numbers without justification. Let us avoid the moral deceit of justifying a moral outrage with invented figures. Let us see what we are talking about. We are talking about an industry and an activity that even our police force does not know the extent of. If the police force does not know the extent of it then how can the opponents point to one reliable figure to justify their claim that this bill will lead to moral decay and social anarchy? 
Let us talk light instead of darkness. Let us bring some rational sense to that industry. Let us bring some rational sense to that area of immorality. Let us find out what really happens and we can do that by removing the laws that drive that activity underground—by removing the laws that the activity hides behind such as the Massage Parlours Act. We should also remove the restrictions that apply to the activity under the Resource Management Act. Let us get a level playing field and then see where we are going. A clear explanation of the issues will give us a light with which to debate this topic. 
Larry Baldock 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The honourable member has already had three calls. If he wishes to seek another call he needs the leave of the Committee. 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understood that I could have four calls. 
John Carter 
: We may have to seek a wider leave than that. I think there was an understanding at the Business Committee and as a consequence of the motion that I put at the beginning of the Committee stage which was accepted that members would be able to take multiple calls beyond four calls. If you feel that there is still that restriction it might be useful for me to seek leave to waive it now so that members can take more than four calls. Accordingly I seek leave for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that clarification. The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.