Employment or exploitation?

By AUDREY YOUNG

Passions are likely to be stirred again in Parliament tomorrow night when the Prostitution Reform Bill returns for detailed consideration.

The divide can be characterised in many ways but, put simply, it is about whether prostitution is employment or exploitation.

The bill treats prostitutes as employees deserving minimum standards and protections like other workers.

Opponents believe prostitution is exploitation and degrading and should not be legitimised by Parliament.

Under present law, being a prostitute is not an offence, but activities associated with it such as soliciting, pimping and brothel-keeping are, so the effect is the same.

If passed, the bill will allow, say, 18-year-old school-leaver Samantha to apply for a job at Sylvia's Services in town and expect all the protections under law that other employees have - holidays, sick leave and a healthy worksite subject to occupational safety and health laws with, in this case, condoms and regular health checks.

Samantha will pay taxes and ACC levies, though whether she would receive compensation if she caught HIV is not clear.

Under the proposed law, she will certainly not be stood down for the dole if she refuses a job offer at Sylvia's.

The chances are that the careers adviser at her high school did not encourage Samantha to apply for the job, but that will depend on the school's policy.

If Sylvia turns her down, Samantha might be able to lawfully operate a sole business or one with a couple of friends from her flat, but that might depend on council rules.

If an amendment by Act MP Stephen Franks is passed, Samantha's landlord will be able to terminate her tenancy if she ends up working from her flat.

If an amendment by National MP Dr Wayne Mapp succeeds, Sylvia will not be able to run a brothel at all, but Samantha will be able to set up business in a flat with one other person.

Any soliciting they do will be controlled by the local council, and it will be an offence to harass potential clients.

But if the new law allows Sylvia to hire Samantha, she must be sure of her age. Under the bill, Sylvia will be liable for up to seven years' jail if it is discovered that Samantha is actually 16 and not the minimum 18 years of age.

Under an amendment proposed by Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel, Sylvia can also be prosecuted if she is hiring, say, Hong Kong girls ostensibly in New Zealand on student visas.

Under the bill, Sylvia will have to have planning permission from the council for her brothel, and councils will have the right to ban her signs if they wish.

The chances are that she is already running a discreet "massage parlour" and that most of her customers already know where her business is.

If an amendment by Justice Minister Phil Goff is passed, a new business rival to Sylvia might be restricted in where he or she sets up shop. Anyone who is a gang member or has a serious conviction for violence or drugs will be barred.

Supporters of the law say that by working in a more open, less stigmatised and decriminalised industry, Samantha will be more likely to move on from prostitution rather than feel trapped in it.

If she ended up on the street, rather than in a brothel, she would feel more inclined to approach the police if she felt her safety was under threat.

Opponents say the law will encourage more girls like Samantha into the industry.

There are several ways to deal with prostitution under the law:

pf* Criminalisation - where selling and/or buying sex is illegal.

pf* Legalisation - making prostitution legal and setting up laws to govern it.

pf* Decriminalisation - removing laws that criminalise prostitution.

The private member's bill sponsored by Labour MP Tim Barnett proposes decriminalisation.

The main argument against legalisation is that under a statutory regime there will be some operators who will not meet the standard and an "illegal" sector will inevitably be formed, the reverse of the bill's intent.

Mr Goff's amendments come close to creating a legalised environment, it has been argued.

Some of the bill's opponents say the law is functioning well now as a de facto licence regime with police supervision under the Massage Parlours Act 1978.

That act would be repealed by the Prostitution Reform Bill, but another of Mr Goff's amendments proposes that an official register of brothels be held by some authority, probably the courts.

MP have also spent much time discussing "the Swedish model", under which men, not women (or buyers, not sellers) have been criminalised since 1999. If an amendment proposed by Labour MP Dianne Yates passes, NZ will adopt the Swedish model.

How the amendment came to be accepted at all is contentious in that it turns the original bill on its head.

Dianne Yates is supported by leading anti-reform advocates Larry Baldock - the United Future MP who examined the Swedish situation while in Europe - and Peter Brown, the NZ First deputy leader who has drafted a bill along similar lines that has yet to be drawn from the ballot of private members' bills.

For every statistic produced by one MP on the effects of Sweden's law change or the situation in the states of Victoria (legalised) or New South Wales (decriminalised), another MP puts up counter-statistics.

The pro-Swedish advocates say prostitution has declined. The anti-Swedish say it has merely been forced further underground, with sex workers less protected than before.

If Tim Barnett's bill passes, the law will be subject to a formal review in three to five years.

Q&A What does the bill do?

It decriminalises prostitution by repealing the offences of soliciting, pimping and brothel-keeping. Prostitution itself is not illegal in New Zealand, but the activities associated with it are.

How much support does the bill have?

It just scraped through its second reading five weeks ago, 62 votes to 56. The private member's bill is subject to a rare conscience vote, though some parties are voting in unison: NZ First and United Future opposed, Greens in favour. A final vote won't happen for at least two weeks. It could be close.

What's next?

MPs will consider a pile of amendments as the bill enters its committee stage tomorrow.

How big is the problem?

A select committee heard submissions that there are 4000 to 8000 full- and part-time prostitutes in NZ.

For and against

Tim Barnett (Labour) FOR:

"The current law is untenable. It is based on a nonsense, rewarding the strong and punishing the weak. It inflates the risks while punishing those who seek positive solutions. Only two months ago, police raided a brothel in Wellington and used the presence of condoms - there to prevent the spread of disease - in order to prove a brothel-keeping charge."

Dianne Yates (Labour) AGAINST:

"As a radical feminist, I am in the same camp as many conservative people on this. This bill is supposed to protect prostitutes but I believe it will, rather, protect brothels, brothel-keepers and the clients. It will provide nice, clean brothels so that clients can go home to their wives undetected as to where they spent the night."

Katherine Rich (National) FOR:

"I would be heart-broken if one of my children decided to enter the sex industry. Prostitution plays no part in my dreams for them. But if they did, I would want to know that they had the same rights as any other New Zealander."

Peter Brown (NZ First) AGAINST:

"If this bill becomes law, we can expect the industry to expand. There will be more drug abuse. There will be more child prostitution. There will be more sexual activity, which will lead to more sexually transmitted diseases. There will be more trafficking in women. There will be more violence against prostitutes."