Mapp Wayne: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5225] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 We have been asked by the promoter of the bill to speak according to a list. That does not really work because the core issue of the bill is contained in clause 10 the repeals provision of the legislation. In many respects all other parts of the legislation are surplus because the real goal of the promoter of this bill is to decriminalise prostitution—to remove all legal sanctions against any part of prostitution or activities related thereto. For instance all the provisions of the Crimes Act would be repealed under this legislation. Those provisions relate to brothel-keeping living off the earnings of a prostitute and the procuring of prostitutes. Those provisions exist largely because it is recognised that people who operate brothels who procure and live off the earnings of prostitutes are essentially in an exploitative relationship. That is why the criminal law has deep and serious sanctions against them. By and large the types of people engaged in those kinds of activities are invariably involved in other areas of criminality. That is the reality. In essence what the promoter of the bill would have us do is to make legal a class of people involved in a range of criminal activities. I believe that is wrong. 
The second prohibition or repeal is the Massage Parlours Act of 1978. A massage parlour would become a normal business just like any other business—no regulations no controls no vetting of any description—just as is the case with brothels under the promoter’s view. So the goal is normalcy; he is trying to deny that there is any sense of an exploitative relationship in it and that is simply not correct. 
The third repeal is section 26 of the Summary Offences Act. That is quite different because it relates to the prostitute himself or herself. Under the current law if one solicits in a public place that is an offence that attracts a $200 fine. However the law is enforced in a haphazard manner. For instance every day of the week police officers drive past prostitutes who are soliciting and ignore them. They know that unless there is some kind of offensive aspect to it or harassment then it can be ignored. I have therefore proposed two changes to the existing law. The first is to change the law around soliciting—and I will probably talk about that in more detail later on. The second is to retain the law on brothel-keeping because of its exploitative nature but then to say that if a prostitute is using his or her place or another place that is rented that should not be deemed to be a brothel because that of itself is not an exploitative situation. 
So I believe that the promoter’s fundamental thinking is flawed notwithstanding all of the worthy objectives in the earlier clauses about safer sex and protections for prostitutes in refusing or not refusing contracts. Those clauses might appear to be quite useful and I recognise also the strengthening of the law about prostitutes under the age of 18 but they are not the core of the legislation and that has to be clearly understood in this debate.