Hutchison Paul: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4468] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to talk on this very important Prostitution Reform Bill which I do not support. I do not support it because I am not convinced by any of the evidence I read anywhere in the literature that it is going to benefit either those involved in prostitution or society in general. 
If one looks at the statistics surrounding the various prostitution models that are available—the decriminalisation model in New South Wales the legalisation model in Victoria or the Swedish model—one sees that none of them has demonstrated over time that there has been an overall benefit in either of the two parameters that are really important which are those of helping the prostitutes themselves or those involved with prostitution or helping society in general. It is fine to call a bill a reform bill but there has to be good evidence to demonstrate that that actually will happen. The word “reform” does imply “to make better by removal of faults or errors”. 
It is ironic that prostitution itself is not illegal in New Zealand and that has come about by the fact that I understand Parliament has never consciously debated whether prostitution should be legal in New Zealand. It has certainly come about by a Victorian legacy that we have had and have accepted in New Zealand but I think it is important that that actual debate does happen before we frame a bill that is likely to be enduringly successful. 
The title of this bill is inappropriate because of this question of whether it truly will be reform. I have put an amendment to call this bill by a title that truly reflects its aim to decriminalise such activities as soliciting living off the earnings of prostitution pimping and coercion. Consequently I think the name should reflect what the bill purports to do. I have suggested it be called the “Decriminalisation of Prostitution and Related Activities Bill”. On any of the criteria that are stated in the aims of this bill I cannot see any objective evidence of reform actually being achieved. 
I shall go through those five aims. One is protecting children from exploitation in relation to prostitution. Certainly the present law does protect them and I do not think there is any extra protection that this bill affords. 
Secondly there is the aim of creating an environment that is conducive to public health and this clearly is hugely important. I pay tribute to the AIDS Foundation and those involved in the campaign in New Zealand to bring about the safe-sex message. Unfortunately there is no evidence that I can see that this bill will improve that situation. I would very much like to see that happen. 
Consequently I have also put a second amendment in anticipation of this bill going through that it be tested in 5 years’ time. One of the strengths of this bill is that there is a monitoring mechanism and that is very important. We want to know objectively in New Zealand if this bill is enacted whether the situation is improved. If it is not then the legislation should be scrapped in those circumstances. The second amendment I have put is that this bill if it is enacted will expire 5 years after the day on which it receives the royal assent unless a majority of the House of Representatives resolves otherwise. 
There is an onus on the committee that is to monitor this bill to ensure that it does its job very thoroughly in terms of both the benefits for those involved in the sex industry and the benefits or otherwise for society. I would be very appreciative if the Committee supported those two amendments.