Eckhoff Gerrard: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4480] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 When I came down to the Chamber to listen to the debate this evening I was not really intending to speak but I felt almost compelled to do so and having got the call obviously I will do so. This debate has been something of a confession and other members have talked about their previous lives—some quite explicitly. I guess it is not appropriate for me to discuss the prostitution industry because frankly I know little or nothing about it. I am perhaps loath to admit that; perhaps I should have done some research on the issue. But I have like every other member received a huge amount of correspondence from people on both sides of the argument. I came down to the Chamber this evening with no preconceived ideas whatsoever. We have heard from those with very strong religious convictions about the morality side of this issue and that must be respected. We have also heard a more liberal attitude expressed by members who recognise that times change and society must move on. I listened to that especially given my connection to the ACT party because we see ourselves as classical liberals. So I face this issue with some real dilemma. 
In thinking about some of the expressions that have been used in the Chamber I recall that when we watched movies we used to refer to prostitutes as scarlet women. In those days and even in biblical times prostitutes were driven from society. Yet clearly society had a real need for those women even 2000 or 3000 years ago. Of course our society in New Zealand has changed from the earlier days of our establishment in this country to a time where prostitution has become accepted. It has become if one likes a normal part of society even if it has not had legislative acceptance. 
But what concerns me more than anything about this bill results from my experience as a member of our society. I think back to some of the real debates we have had in this House or that others have had in this House well before my time and remember how the particular social policy that was put forward voted on and accepted by this House has been an unmitigated disaster. I think about the royal commission on welfare and about how the domestic purposes benefit was to be a marvellous example and a lesson to the world on how we could help people—especially women—in real need. Of course who amongst us would deny that that is a very sensible thing to do? Yet we can look at the explosion in the number of women on the domestic purposes benefit now. I am not drawing a comparison in terms of numbers; it is just a reality that sometimes in this Parliament we get it wrong. 
On another issue I think of how we spoke on and argued at length about the Resource Management Act and said it would be wonderful legislation for the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think of how we lowered the drinking age for teenagers allowed alcohol in supermarkets and introduced alcopops—lolly water. That has been an unmitigated disaster. Whether Parliament is prepared to admit to that does not really matter; to me that seems to be the reality. So I look at what Parliament and our politicians have done over the years in the area of social change and frankly I see far too many messes—and somebody else has to pick up the pieces after we get it so very wrong. 
I will be voting against the bill not out of any moral indignation or religious belief—far from it. But I just do not believe that we have heard enough argument or reason to change a status quo that I believe most of our society is quite happy to accept—albeit in an imperfect way. The status quo seems to be what to me anyway is acceptable at this time.