Hutchison Paul: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6599] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 In choosing to vote against the bill I am very mindful of the powerful argument put up by my colleague Katherine Rich in support of the bill at the beginning of this debate. In effect she saidshe would be heartbroken if one of her children decided to enter the sex industry. But if he or she did and I quote her: “I would want to know that my daughter had the same rights as my son. I would want to know that as far as possible the industry would be as safe as it could be and above board.” 
The major reason that I am not supporting this bill is that I do not believe that the legislative model proposed will enhance or protect the lives of the most vulnerable—the young men and women who prostitute themselves in the streets and who are oftenthe ones unable to obtain jobs in massage parlours or escort agencies. Nothing in this bill reassures me that they will be protected nor is there much visible evidence that this bill is underpinned by resourcing that will break the cycles of disadvantage that get them there in the first place or help them find viable alternatives or rehabilitation. I am also mindful of the strong criticisms of this bill from the Police Association that recent changes to certify brothel operators are unworkable and naive. I note that the president Greg O’Connor has said that his association is not opposed to decriminalisation but MPs need to draft a law that could be practically—and I would hope fairly—enforced. 
I acknowledge the many people involved with the evolution of this bill the sincerity with which they have been involved with it and the huge work that Tim Barnett and other parliamentary colleagues have put into it. In particular I thank the AIDS Foundation and the Prostitutes Collective which I believe have already made a very significant contribution to enhancing public health issues. 
 But one of the pivotal concerns I have about this legislation is that there is very little underpinning to make sure that negative effects are minimised. Liberalising legislation that I have been involved with and have observed more closely is the development of abortion law in the Netherlands as compared with New Zealand which has an abortion rate four times that of the Netherlands. The greatest distinguishing feature of the Netherlands situation was a huge national effort in the 1970s by both sides of the question to resource relevant lifelong education and ensure—before the legislation was enacted—that there would be resources and ready access to high-quality contraception sterilisation and safe abortion services. The same national effort has not occurred in New Zealand. What I do not see with this liberalising prostitution law is a determined national effort by people on either side of the equation to do everything possible before enactment to minimise the drivers towards prostitution and put extra resources in place to minimise the harm to public health—both physical and psychological. 
This Parliament has seen a huge amount of passion and energy regarding this bill over the last few months. If only that passion and energy were put into ensuring that all New Zealand children had the opportunity of accessing first-class education and health from the time they were conceived it would contribute hugely to breaking the cycles of disadvantage that so often lead towards prostitution. I agree that there is a strong need to remove the double standards relating to prostitution law in New Zealand but the legislation model before us is quite inadequate.