Bradford Sue: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6170] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I do hope that we do not draw out this debate for too long because I think that it would be great if we could vote tonight. Having said that I should not be taking a call but I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment that is on the Table from the Green Party—from myself with Sue Kedgley behind me. We had two separate amendments earlier in the Committee stage and as we are about to vote I hope on the amendments I am seeking support for the revised amendment that the Green Party is putting forward. The amendment deals with the question of the advertising of commercial sexual services should the bill be passed. We were concerned as Mr Copeland from United Future has been about the fact that nothing in the bill looked at the whole question of what would happen in terms of advertising if the bill went through. Our revised amendment calls for there to be no advertising of commercial sexual services on television radio or in public movie theatres. We do accept advertising in newspapers and magazines but only in the classified advertisements sections. That is pretty close to the status quo and it also allows magazines with R18-type audiences such as  
Express  
and other magazines to continue to run their R18-type advertisements.  
Mr Copeland and others seem to believe that there should be no advertising at all. We think that that is totally unrealistic and would lead to some regrettable outcomes such as an increase in street soliciting and pimping and also would be in the interests of big-business owners who could afford large-scale street signage. I do not think that any of that is really what any of us wants. If one is to run a service one has to be able to advertise it. That is why we have put forward this amendment with an overall desire to strengthen the bill from whatever point of view members are coming from. We think it is in everyone’s interests to have a sensible approach to advertising so that we do not have the kind of undesirable consequences of either increased street soliciting and pimping or of seeing advertisements on prime-time television for brothels. We do not want our children and probably even ourselves to have to watch that. For those of us who do support decriminalisation it is important that we make the bill as sensible as possible.  
Beyond that I would like to thank some members tonight like Georgina Beyer for exposing the myths that Dr Melissa Farley has been putting forward around the country on behalf of the Maxim Institute and others who have been opposing the bill. I thank Tim Barnett for his work on drawing the arguments together. I thank Maurice Williamson for trying to bring us back to the reality that the very evils so many members who oppose this bill are talking about are things that are happening now and that what those of us who support the bill are trying to do is to fight those evils and to bring in better public health and a much safer environment for sex workers. We want to see an empowering environment that is not in the control of gangs or big business but is much more in the hands of sex workers themselves.  
I note that some people here have talked about Sandra Coney and her arguments from a feminist perspective. Once again it is very ironic that a feminist like Miss Coney is an abolitionist. I cannot understand how someone who has spent her life defending the rights of women can turn round and say that we should be opposing a bill that will stop the criminalising and arresting of women on the streets of Auckland many of whom are Maori women I might add. As to the sense in that what good does it do to any woman or man to be dragged through the police cells through the courts and have his or her whole life changed and damaged by a conviction? I just cannot understand feminist arguments that support the continued criminalisation of those workers.  
In conclusion I make a last-minute plea to members from all sides of the House to consider supporting the bill. I make a particular plea to members of the ACT party some of whom support the bill and some of whom do not. Again I cannot understand why any member of the ACT party would oppose this bill given their avowed commitment on many other fronts to getting the State out of people’s lives and in this particular case getting the State out of the lives of consenting adults over the age of 18.