Yates Dianne: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5744] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to speak particularly about the amendments to the bill because that is where we are at at this particular stage. I am promoting a Supplementary Order Paper that is based on the Swedish law which prosecutes the client rather than the prostitute. I remind the Committee that there are basically two views around this: one that views prostitution as a job that could and should be regulated; and the other which regards it as exploitation of men and women. 
New Zealand has obligations under the United Nations in particular the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women where we have said we would aim to get rid of prostitution. People say to me that I am naive that it will go underground and so on. Prostitution will always be underground because the clients are underground. We have heard from other speakers that about 80 percent of the clients are married men who do not go around boasting that they are using prostitutes. 
I believe that many of the amendments have confused many members in this Committee and that members may vote without being very clear what they are voting for when we get to that particular stage. I know that some members have certain misgivings about this whole issue. I want to speak about the amendments in the name of Phil Goff Sue Kedgley and Gordon Copeland many of which are what I call Nimby amendments. Members should remember what has already been said tonight: prostitution is not illegal; it is the soliciting that is illegal. Many of these amendments are basically reintroducing into the bill some regulations around soliciting. They either say that people cannot advertise here or that they cannot advertise there. They are what I basically say are not-in-my-backyard restrictions—that is: “I do not mind prostitution as long as there is not a sign in my street and as long as it is not where I can see it or where my kids can see it. 
 These amendments I believe are really very much not-in-my-back-yard amendments. They mean: “Prostitution is OK as long as it is nobody I know and I do not have to see it.” which I think is really ignoring prostitutes as a whole. I was tempted to put in an amendment that says: “OK if we’re really thinking of equality for men and women under prostitution why don’t we license the clients and have health checks on them?” When I say that most people laugh and snigger. But if people are laughing and sniggering it just shows—as has been mentioned already tonight—the inequalities in the whole law dealing with prostitution. 
Lianne Dalziel also has an amendment which I think borders somewhat on racism and protectionism. It says it is OK for New Zealanders born here to work as prostitutes but it is not OK for someone to come here on a work permit and work as a prostitute. That is a very strange amendment and it is inconsistent if we are thinking that prostitution is a valid job which I understand it would become under this bill. Then there is Marc Alexander’s amendment which is a little like mine. However it also says we should prosecute both the prostitute and the client and I have problems with that. In most other contracts we say: “Let the buyer beware.” Marc Alexander’s amendment says to put the onus on the prostitute so I will be voting against that one as well. 
As has already been mentioned tonight the questions are about equality. It is not only about gender equality; it is about an imbalance of power between prostitutes and their clients and I think an amendment in the Swedish mode would be the best way to deal with it. I am also concerned that not many members of the public have really looked at the issues. I know that heads of organisations particularly some women’s organisations have made statements. Very few members of local clubs whom I have talked to have actually discussed this matter. Very few of them have given their opinions or have had the opportunity to give their opinions to their head office and they are only just coming to terms with some of the issues in the bill. I feel we should do as was done in Sweden: carry out proper research and look at independent research. 
We have some very divided views at this Committee stage of the bill. Members will be casting a conscience vote with most not having looked at the ramifications of the bill and the full implications involved. I would also like to comment that some people who are voting for the bill say that they do not agree with prostitution but are voting for the health measures. One could drive a bus through some of the health measures in this bill. They say that people who own brothels should take all reasonable health measures. I do not have faith that those people would take all reasonable measures—what is reasonable will be what appeals to the man on the Clapham omnibus I suppose heading towards a brothel. I do not believe that the health measures in this bill will actually protect prostitutes and I believe that many who would work in brothels will be thrown out if they have a health problem. I do not see that that would protect many of the people we are trying to protect. 
So I am urging people to vote for my amendment and to look very seriously at the papers and documents I have supplied on the theory and evidence around the actions taken in Sweden. Sweden has some very good laws—good laws that New Zealand has looked to in the past. The main reason it brought in its prostitution law was to have greater equality between men and women and to reduce the inequalities of power.