Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5653] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill be now read a second time 
. Mr Assistant Speaker you will know as indeed I do that street prostitution has been a problem for a long while in the communities of Papatoetoe and Manurewa and that the council has been frustrated by this. The public are frustrated; so are shop owners who find used condoms in their doorways in the morning. It is a problem that has upset both communities and Sir Barry Curtis has worked closely with you Mr Assistant Speaker and me over many years. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee received 121 submissions and heard 45 of them. I have read the commentary on the bill and the conclusion section is very interesting. It states: “We are concerned about the increasing amount of antisocial behaviour apparently occurring in New Zealand’s urban areas to which this bill appears in part to be a reaction and we have sympathy with the local concerns expressed by Manukau City Council. We acknowledge that the problems described in Manukau may have national implications especially given the possible connections between street prostitution and crimes such as domestic violence child abuse and gang-related crimes. However the majority of the committee does not believe that having a local law different from the national law in respect of prostitution is workable.” 
That statement of course is not what Manukau City wanted to hear. Sir Barry Curtis wrote to me and to others on 11 September after receiving the report. He stated: “Manukau City Council is disappointed to note that the Local Government and Environment Select Committee has recommended that the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill not be passed at its second reading. The committee rightly acknowledges the council and community have real concerns that need addressing about the activity of sex workers on the street but it does not believe the bill is the answer. The council disputes this. The committee suggests that local legislation is inappropriate because citizens would be subject to conflicting laws depending on their current geographical location. But in fact that is already the case with differing bylaws that apply from district to district.” 
Sir Barry Curtis’ letter went further: “The committee suggests that the bill amends the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 within the boundaries for Manukau City and that this is undesirable from a public policy point of view. In fact the bill is in keeping with the spirit and principles of the Act and seeks only to limit one form of prostitution that is seen to be creating particular difficulties within the district. This is a local district issue within Manukau involving local communities. It is not likely to create a precedent of any kind.” 
He further states: “The suggestion that the potential fine of $10000 will in fact be an incentive to continue working on the streets is inaccurate. If these people are fined $10000 one’s got to ask where are they going to find the $10000.” 
I think that that does show there is a real problem there. However after the council put that forward I think it realised that the measure was perhaps extreme. 
The suggestion that safe-house brothels and tolerance zones are successful initiatives is disputed by the council. Research indicates that tolerance zones in the Netherlands are implemented in conjunction with strict enforcement of laws to prohibit street prostitution outside of these areas. 
Manukau as a council obviously spent some time researching this matter. It was not just a quick response to a problem. This problem has been going on for years. I think the council really was asking its local members of Parliament to bring the bill to Parliament so that it could be discussed. The reality is that street prostitution is frustrating for those people. It happens usually late at night unseen by the majority of people in the community. It attracts undesirables. Not only does it attract clients who kerbcrawl but also it attracts another element of people who vandalise the shops where it takes place. It is a most unpleasant activity and of course the council has the job of trying to make sure the town areas where this happens are cleaned up before the shops open. Schools have had to get their caretaker go around and check that used condoms are not in the school-grounds before the start of school. 
However the House moved a great deal in 2003 when it passed new laws about prostitution. Most councils are finding this very workable. But Christchurch Auckland City and Manukau have had problems. Indeed Christchurch and Auckland have been taken to the High Court over the restrictive way the provisions have been presented. 
The conclusion in the commentary further states: “Irrespective of the outcome of this proposed legislation we urge Manukau City Council to continue to work with support from central government on local solutions that develop from consultation with all parties affected by street prostitution. The majority believe that initiatives supported by the local community sex workers and their advocates outreach workers social agencies and the police are a more effective and appropriate use of resources than the proposed legislated solution.” The commentary includes a minority report from the National Party. I dare say we will hear from National a little later on. 
 Whatever happens with this bill this evening I think the problem will not just go away. If we pass this second reading and then eventually pass the bill a $10000 fine will not work. We have heard a lot of emotive argument about schoolgirls on the streets. Well we have people in their twenties wearing school uniforms on the street as a marketing ploy. Some people have tried to exaggerate the problem but let no one make the mistake that for the communities of Papatoetoe and Manurewa it is a real problem. The council has been unable to solve it itself. 
I ask people to think carefully before they vote tonight. They should think about the law that was passed in 2003. We do not want to see that undermined. But they should also think of the problem that the Manukau City Council and the residents of Manukau have. I urge people to think carefully before casting their vote.