Carter John: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
Carter John: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5658] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I speak in support of this legislation and there are a number of reasons why. But I want first of all to correct one statement that the previous speaker Steve Chadwick made because it is important to correct it. She made a comment that we on the Local Government and Environment Committee work well together and that is true. We are actually not a bad team. Generally—it depends on the circumstances—we leave our politics outside the door and we get on and do the work that one would expect of a select committee. Occasionally of course when issues become political we become politicians. The member Steve Chadwick suggested that we had voted as a committee unanimously for the bill. That is absolutely incorrect. We did not vote for the bill; we voted unanimously for the report. 
 I voted for the report for this reason. In the report back on the bill on page 7 is a minority report “Minority view of New Zealand National”. I know that another party which might speak on it wanted to be coupled with it but was not able to at the time. There was a unanimous vote on the report because the report enabled us to give different views. I want to draw the House’s attention to the minority view on page 7 because it sets out a number of things that are important for this House to consider. So I want to clear up first that there was not unanimous support for the bill or opposition against the bill. A number of members on the committee actually think the bill should be passed and I for one will be voting for the legislation. 
Steve Chadwick the chairperson of the committee talked about the fact that a prostitution law review is happening. Well that may be so but I want to make this observation: is it not a great pity that the Government is not accelerating the local government rates review with the same speed it is accelerating the prostitution law review? Why has the Government not got on and done something about that local government rates review because that review is far more important and the Government needs to be held to account for the fact that it has dilly-dallied? The select committee—and the member knows this—very nearly passed some 6 or 8 weeks ago a review on local government and the only reason we did not was that the Government said it was going to have one. Well I ask the House where it is. Has anyone in this House seen it? Have there been any statements from the Minister? The only time he commented on the local government review was when he was asked a question by the National Party and he had to comment. So I just make the observation that that is an important review that needs to happen as well. 
Reviews in themselves mean diddly-squat at the end of the day. It is this Parliament that can do things. The reason I am disappointed that we have this bill before us is that we were told by the proposer of the Prostitution Reform Bill Mr Tim Barnett that one of the things that would happen as a consequence of decriminalising prostitution was that we would see those people off the street. I well remember that debate. I well remember being told that we could vote for the bill because the prostitutes would all disappear and be in nice well-organised looked-after brothels. They would be well and clean. Everything would be tidy— 
Gordon Copeland 
: And safe. 
JOHN CARTER 
:—and safe and the workers would all be over 18 20 98—or whatever age they would be. We would not see any young people or illicit people out there doing the things they do on the streets. Well you have got to be kidding. Has that happened? Not on your nelly! Members should go and have a look in Manurewa or Papatoetoe and see the people hanging out there soliciting on the streets and touting their wares or whatever it is they tout. I say they are there all right and I tell Mr Barnett that that is not what he promised this House would happen. That is what disappoints me. It seriously disappoints me. The fact is that there are young people there. I have seen a mother of 31 her daughter of 15 her niece of 16 her nephew of 14 and her son of 7. They were out on the street in Papatoetoe or Manurewa—somewhere around there—and they were soliciting. The mother the niece and the daughter were all turning tricks yet Mr Barnett told us that we would not see any more of that—that the girls would all be over the age of 18. Well he was wrong. 
But the thing that seriously worries me with this bill and with the fact that some of the Labour Party members are saying we should not support it—and it is an absolute disgrace that they are using this as a reason not to support this bill—is that they are saying the problem is that we cannot police it. They are admitting they do not have enough law enforcement officers in this country. They are saying that if we pass this bill the police will have to do something about it—but we ain’t got enough of them. Well they must wake up. We have been telling the Labour Government that for years have we not? Have not a number of us in this House been saying to this Government that it needs more police on the street? Police need to be out there making sure that the laws we pass are properly looked after and policed. Now we are finding speeches that are saying: “No we had better not pass this because if we do we mightn’t have enough police to police it.” Well why did we pass the decriminalisation legislation in the first place if we did not have enough enforcement officers to enforce that? Why do we pass a lot of these bills if we cannot back them up in the way they should be backed up? 
I say to this Government that here it is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally on pledge cards and other promises at election time so why in the world does it not spend the money where it should be spent? That is the point: why does the Government not spend the money where it is needed—on the police—rather than making promises in its pledge cards and other documents which we all know are illegal? That money should not have been spent. I am told it was in excess of $800000. How many police would that buy for goodness’ sake? How many police would we be able to put on the streets? How many police would we be able to have out there making sure those young people are not out there? Nobody is supervising them at present. I wonder why this Parliament is not asking those sorts of questions. I know the public are. 
The public are worried about those matters. The member for Manurewa knows that; that is why George Hawkins is supporting this bill. He knows that this is good law. He knows that the local authority is representing the community and that is what this Government said the local authority should be doing. But now in the same breath the Labour Government is saying to the local authority: “Well we have given you the power of general competence but when you come before this House to do something you think is right on behalf of your community—nah! We don’t want a bar of it. It’s too tough for us.” It is too hard for this Labour Government the Helen Clark - led Labour Government to administer. It says: “It makes a mockery of us; we would actually have to put a few more resources in. We might have to do something so no we don’t want a bar of it thanks very much Manukau City.” 
Well I say to the Labour Government that I think that is an absolute shame a real shame. Labour members should be ashamed of themselves if they are not supporting this bill. The local community are asking for it. The local council on their behalf has put this bill forward and we should be prepared to support them—and I will.