Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6167] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 First of all in response to the previous speaker who has appealed to us about the fact that if we make prostitution illegal it will not change things I refer him to an article from the  
Dominion Post  
that talks about the death of a poor sex worker in Sydney Australia where of course it has been decriminalised since 1995. When that poor woman choked to death on her vomit it ended 15 torturous years in Australia first as a child sex slave then as a heroin-addicted prostitute.  
The article stated: “Puongtong died malnourished weighing only 31 kilograms but her lonely death in a Sydney detention centre in 2001 sparked neither newspaper headlines nor outrage from politicians.” It is true that we have a situation that exists right now and is not satisfactory for us as a country but it is not true to say that by decriminalising that activity it is going to get any better. It has not anywhere in the world. All the international evidence points to the fact that it has in fact got worse not only with the situation regarding local prostitutes but also in the incidence of international trafficking in women and children and slavery has increased in every nation that has liberalised its prostitution laws.  
I want to make some comments about one of the first speakers tonight Georgina Beyer who viciously attacked Melissa Farley’s research. I am rather disappointed because I had understood and had heard from the member’s own mouth that her opposition—which had switched in the last few weeks towards this bill—was based not on Melissa’s research but on the fact she had been back to look at where she had been involved in prostitution herself in her life some years ago and her conclusion had been that this legislation did nothing to prevent women from entering prostitution nor did it do anything to help women exit the industry and that is why she was considering opposing it. Melissa Farley’s research had nothing to do with that. In fact no one in this House would know better what a hellhole prostitution is than Georgina Beyer herself. The idea that this bill was supposed to prevent women from entering it is a nonsense and that is why we oppose it. It is not going to deliver for the people involved in prostitution what they hope it will.  
In fact regardless of Melissa’s research I have conducted several public debates around the country since this bill has been of public interest and prostitutes from both sides of the camp have stood up during those debates. Some are hoping that this bill is going to solve all their problems and others some of whom had years of experience disagreed. In fact one who had 20 years' experience was at the most recent debate where Sue Bradford was present and she said she has been in massage parlours all over the country. She has been a prostitute all around the world and she completely scorned the idea that this bill was going to make life better for prostitutes. If we cannot take it from the mouth of that prostitute who has some credibility then I do not know who we are going to be listening to. Melissa Farley came here on a very short trip—10 days. She did her very best to interview prostitutes from morning till night to try to get some indication of what is really happening in New Zealand and I think it is deplorable that people are attacking minute details of that research as a way of trying to shift the emphasis upon the horrible lifestyle that prostitutes have in this country.  
I am also concerned about the status quo. I do not believe that the status quo in this country is good enough. I have racked my brains over the last months to try to see what we could actually do that would be common sense in order to address some of the concerns that are raised by this bill. I put forward an amendment that I thought might have offered some assistance. I am sympathetic to the fact that these poor women can be tricked by policemen in a massage parlour and prosecuted for soliciting when the massage parlour owner—who is operating as a brothel keeper and is living off the earnings of prostitution which is an offence under the Crimes Act—is allowed to get away scot-free. I think that that is an injustice and I would like to have addressed it. I think it is also a shame that women who are soliciting on the street are prosecuted but the police do not go round the corner and find the illegal brothel and do something about that. But as I have tried to find a way forward I have come to the conclusion that almost anything we try to do with this bill to try to make life better for a prostitute ends up having a very negative consequence. So I shall be withdrawing my amendment as from tonight. I have had to admit that it will not achieve what I hoped it would achieve. If we take away the Summary Offences Act— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has used up his speeches. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have not. I have had only one speech in this section of the debate. I spoke during the debate on the title but I have not spoken during this section. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: According to the notes we have here the member has had his four calls on this part. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I have not Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will check that. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I shall come back to you after the dinner break. I did not get a call last time we debated this in the entire evening that we debated it and prior to that it was the vote— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I come back to the member shortly on that please? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes. Thank you Mr Chairperson.