Copeland Gordon: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5665] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 This bill the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill has come back to Parliament because Manukau City has a very real problem with street prostitution. One of the areas is Hunters Corner and we have just heard from an expert eyewitness in Pita Sharples in relation to Hunters Corner. But Pita Sharples did not mention the other bigger area which is Northcrest in Manurewa. I on 25 September just a few weeks ago heard direct evidence from Sir Barry Curtis the Mayor of Manukau and from city councillor Colleen Brown that girls as young as 14 and 15 are working as prostitutes at Northcrest to get money to buy paint and to sniff glue. It is older and more professional prostitutes on the other hand who work at Hunters Corner. I make the distinction between those two areas. 
Together with the Hon Marian Hobbs and my former colleague Larry Baldock I visited both of those situations on a Monday night to observe the activity. We were told two things about Monday nights. First it is the quiet night of the week and secondly activity is more limited during the winter than it is during the summer months. It is quite clear therefore that what we saw on that Monday night which I will mention in a moment is a much smaller level of activity than we would typically see on a Thursday night a Friday night a Saturday night or even on a Sunday night. Those are the big days of the week when it comes to street soliciting in those two areas. 
Sir Barry and Colleen told us that contrary to the Christchurch school of medicine reports numbers are not dropping and have not dropped since the Prostitution Reform Act came into being. Indeed all the evidence that we heard on 25 Septemberpointed exactly in the other direction. The Maori wardens were the source of the information about a 400 percent increase which has been mentioned by the  
New Zealand Herald 
. I would like to advise the House and in particular Sue Bradford who mentioned this that the Prostitutes Collective told us in answer to our question that it does not count the young women in Northcrest who are dressed in hoodies—one can see them and we did on that night—as prostitutes because they are not in the collective’s terminology professional prostitutes. Therefore those numbers are significantly under-counted. The number that we were given for a typical Thursday night—the big night of the week—in Northcrest alone is 55 active prostitutes over 18 and 18 active prostitutes under 18. That is a typical Thursday night at Northcrest. Those members who do not believe that can simply go as we did and have a look for themselves. They will find that the evidence that was presented to the select committee is essentially completely accurate. 
Let us look for a moment at what the Act did in relation to street soliciting. All it did was repeal the Summary Offences Act to remove the offence of soliciting. In other words all it did specifically about street soliciting was simply say to the nation: “This activity is no longer illegal. You are free now to go ahead and solicit on the streets of New Zealand with no constraints at all.” 
It is very interesting to think of it in the context of that legislation for two reasons. Firstly as others have mentioned we were told by the promoter of the bill—and by the way all the United Future MPs voted against it—that with legal up-market brothels we would see people disappear off the streets. As Mr Assistant Speaker H V Ross Robertson well knows because he is familiar with this area that has not happened. Secondly I want to make it clear to the House that it is illegal in Manukau City and in every other city in New Zealand to sell bananas on the streets. One cannot sell commercial products on the streets of New Zealand cities without getting a permit from the council. However prostitution is perfectly legal. This is the whole point of why the Manukau City Council in desperation has come to this House—because it has no way of controlling this. We as Parliament have said it is OK for people to sell and buy sex on the streets. We have not given local authorities any tools to regulate that whatsoever. That is the reality of the prostitution reform legislation that was passed by this House in 2003. 
Let me make a further couple of comments. That same reform legislation as we know did impose new penalties for people who purchase sex from sex workers under 18—severe penalties: imprisonment of up to 7 years in that legislation. So how come on a typical Thursday night any observer can go to Northcrest and count up to 18 under-age girls working—I was going to say “their tails off” which is the way one of the women put it to me? I will come back to that in a moment because no one is getting arrested. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: The other thing about the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 is that it introduced a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years for people who could be described as pimps—those who induce or compel other people to provide sexual services against their will. We were told at those hearings in Auckland on 25 September that there are pimps active in Northcrest in Manuwera. Notwithstanding the fact that we have prison sentences of up to 7 years for people buying sex from under-age workers and up to 14 years for pimps there is no police involvement or any attempt to enforce those laws in the Manukau City area. That is what the Local Government and Environment Committee was told and that is what Colleen Brown advised the Hon Marian Hobbs and me as members of the group established under our confidence and supply agreement to review the Act. 
There are no police on the beat in Northcrest or Papatoetoe. Colleen told us however that she occasionally goes out with a patrol car just to have a look at what is going on in those areas. She said to us that of course they do not get out of the car. I asked her what she meant when she said the police do not get out of the car. She looked at me as if I had come down in the last shower and said it was because it was too dangerous. We are talking here about Manukau City—not the Bronx or the south side of Los Angeles—and it is a national disgrace that there is no police presence where these activities are going on. It is not just prostitution; it is drugs it is gangs it is the whole lot that we have heard about from other speakers. 
Sir Barry Curtis simply put this proposition to the select committee and to our committee. He said: “If you in Parliament can give us the tools we can bring this activity to an end.” He needs to re-involve the police. We need to look at criminalising the client. The select committee heard from all the women’s groups that came along—a whole array of them—and they basically said that if the demand for prostitution on the streets of Manukau was stopped prostitution on the streets of Manukau would be stopped. I think that is logical but I have not heard any other speakers specifically say they brought that proposition along. We can and we should do that. 
The choice that Parliament faces tonight is pretty simple. We either walk by on the other side turn our backs on the citizens and the community of Manukau or we actually do something constructive about this terrible situation that has arisen in that particular city. Which is it? I suggest that our choice needs to be based—and should be based—on the degree to which we genuinely care about the young lives being ruined and the communities being degraded by prostitutes in the streets in those areas. This legislation is not about punishing people under 18—there is no proposal to criminalise those at all; that is just a red herring. Political and practical steps can be taken to re-involve the police and to see this activity come to an end. It is quite clear that we can do that. We have the power to do that. That is what we are elected to Parliament to do and we should get on with it. 
We can as I mentioned introduce a system that would fine the clients—not the under-18 prostitutes—and we could at the same time continue with the community involvement to give practical help to get those under-age girls out of the industry. We have a false dichotomy of either criminalising or giving help. No we can do both and we should do both. United Future supports this bill. I simply say to the House that where there is a will there is a way. Thank you.