In June 2003, by the slimmest majority possible, the New Zealand Parliament passed the Prostitution Law Reform Act. This Act decriminalised prostitution in New Zealand and put in place provisions intended to protect the health and safety of those involved in the prostitution industry. The intent of the Act was not to make a definitive statement about the morality of prostitution, but only to legally protect those involved. The desire to protect those subject to the industry is a worthy one.
On May 14 2008 the Prostitution Law Review Committee presented its report on the impact of the law to the Associate Minister of Justice.
At The Humanitarian Chronicle it is our view that discussions involving the sex industry are humanitarian discussions as the debate about the morality of the industry is up in the air and there are many who argue and present research to further the view that it is exploitive and destructive. The debate about the negative nature of the industry, even though this law was passed in New Zealand, is far from over.
We are also connected to humanitarian workers directly engaged with those whose lives have been damaged by acts of prostitution, both in New Zealand and overseas.
With the balance of the argument in mind, we thought it within the best interest of all who may wish to understand the nature of the review of this law in New Zealand to have a better understanding of the committee put together to undertake the review process and to produce the subsequent public report.
We believe that valid questions need to be raised about the bias of the review committee as we believe that the relevant interests of many of the members of the review committee provide a questionable foundation for an objective review of this controversial law.
For the purposes of public interest, as presented in The Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, here is the list of committee members with relevant interests listed. The list can also be viewed by clicking here:
Paul Fitzharris O.N.Z.M. – nominated by the Minister of Police (Chairperson)
Paul Fitzharris retired from the NZ Police in 2001 as an Assistant Commissioner. During the latter part of his career he was Acting Deputy Commissioner. He has been a member of the Legal Aid Review Panel, and conducted a number of reviews for government agencies in respect of emergency management, search and rescue and a review of the Cook Islands Police. He is a board member of Orana Wildlife Park, Christchurch. He is currently the Acting Chair of Land Transport New Zealand and Patron of New Zealand Neighbourhood Support.
Catherine Hannan – nominated by the Minister of Justice
Catherine Hannan, DOLC, is a Sister of Compassion. She has a background in education, development and the social sciences and is currently on the team at the Suzanne Aubert Compassion Centre, popularly known as the Wellington Soup Kitchen. Sister Catherine is Chair of the Board of Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand, an agency for development, justice and peace. Her particular interest is human rights.
Debbie Baker – nominated by the Minister of Justice
Debbie Baker is the manager of Streetreach, a confidential support service for those involved in prostitution. She has a wide knowledge of the sex industry through working with those in the industry both in England and in New Zealand. Streetreach has been in operation in New Zealand since 2000 and is an initiative of The Life Centre Trust, a charitable trust based in Auckland that exists to make life better for those in the community. Ms Baker joined the Committee in June 2007, filling a vacancy held since May 2006.
Matt Soeberg – nominated by the Minister of Health
Matt Soeberg has a strong background in public health policy. He is currently a PhD candidate at the Health Inequalities Research Programme, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, examining ethnic and socioeconomic trends in cancer survival rates. He is also a senior analyst at the Cancer Control Council of New Zealand. He has worked for the Special Programme on Environment and Health, World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe. Mr Soeberg has also worked at the Auckland Regional Public Health Service, the New Zealand AIDS Foundation and the Ministry of Health. His interests are in social epidemiology, public health policy and law, health inequalities and health impact assessment.
Sue Piper – nominated by the Minister of Local Government
Sue Piper was a Wellington City councillor for nine years and a member of Local Government New Zealand’s National Council for three years. In 1995, she was a member of the NGO Co-ordinating group preparing New Zealand’s NGO presentation at the 1995 Conference on Women. Ms Piper is currently the Executive Director of the Wellington Region Foundation. She is also the Chair of the Local Government Commission and a board member for Quotable Value.
Karen Ritchie – nominated by the Minister of Commerce
Karen Ritchie has been working for the NZ Aids Foundation for the past four years. Her experience in the sex industry spans many years as a tax paying worker and small business owner. In May 2006, Ms Ritchie spoke at the Harm Reduction Conference in Vancouver about her personal experience of criminalisation and decriminalisation whilst in the industry. She is the founder of the Cartier Bereavement Charitable Trust in Auckland, which assists with funeral costs for those who have passed on from an HIV/AIDS related illness.
Mary Brennan – nominated by the Minister of Commerce
Mary Brennan has over 20 years experience in people management, including ten years in restaurant management in both New Zealand and the UK. For the past ten years Ms Brennan has managed brothels. She has developed and written a user friendly job description and interview booklet for sex workers. Her main areas of interest are training, communication and human rights. Ms Brennan now works as a private sexuality consultant.
Sue Crengle – nominated by the Minister of Women’s Affairs
Dr Sue Crengle has a Bachelor of Human Biology, Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, and Master of Public Health from Auckland University. She has medical specialty qualifications in General Practice and in Public Health Medicine. Dr Crengle has previously worked as a Medical Officer Special Scale in Auckland Sexual Health Services. She is currently employed as a Senior Lecturer in Te Kupenga Hauora Māori, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Auckland. She is also the Director of Tōmaiora Māori Health Research Centre.
Catherine Healy – nominated by the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective
Catherine Healy B.A., Dip Tch. is National Co-ordinator of the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective. She has sat on a wide range of expert committees, and is frequently sought by national and international groups for advice on issues affecting sex workers.
Lisa Waimarie – nominated by the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective
Lisa Waimarie has worked for the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective for 10 years, initially joining the organisation as a volunteer, and then becoming the Regional Coordinator of the group’s Dunedin branch. She has also been the Coordinator for a local HIV/AIDS support group. Both of these organisations are part of a larger collective called the Working Together Group – a collective of Dunedin HIV/AIDS education, prevention and support groups that work together to organise annual events aimed at promoting community awareness of this issue. Ms Waimarie was the Event Coordinator for the Working Together Group for seven years.
Jan Jordan – nominated by the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective
Dr Jan Jordan is currently Senior Lecturer in the Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington. She became interested in researching prostitution over 20 years ago while studying women’s involvement in crime in nineteenth century New Zealand. Dr Jordan later compiled a book of interviews with women working in the contemporary sex industry (Working Girls, Penguin Books, 1991). Since then she has conducted a small research project with the clients of sex workers and compiled a literature review on the New Zealand sex industry for the Ministry of Justice (2005).
Former Committee Members
The position currently filled by Debbie Baker was previously occupied by Alan Bell, the then Director of ECPAT NZ Inc, and prior to that by Susan Martin of ECPAT who sadly died soon after resigning in 2004.
Whilst we believe that the report makes some good observations and recommendations, including provision for more funding to help those out of the industry who no longer wish to be a part of it – something we believe is quite telling in itself about the impact and nature of the industry – would it not be within the best interest of the public to have the validity of the review committee put under scrutiny when five of the eleven members have a clear vested interest in maintaining the authority of this piece of legislation – not simply a minor intellectual bias towards it?
Three of the committee members were directly nominated by the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective and two of the other members have either had gainful employment in the industry in the past, or currently do so. Does this not raise alarm bells about the objectivity of the review?
Note: Whilst this article does not sit in the normal realm of the purpose of this website, it is felt that this is an issue that needs to be raised even if the outcome is that the general public take no issue with the qualifications of the review committee.
No related posts.
Isn’t “bias” a strong word?
Isn’t “bias” in the eye of the beholder?
After all one could allege “bias” because the committee includes a former policeman or a Catholic sister.
That’s the nature of democracy, I guess. Almost everyone will allege bias in such committees (and committees considering ethical questions are becoming more common) because we all approach things from different ethical perspectives.
Personally I think in our modern pluralistic society where the existence of prostitution is recognised (independent of any law), together with the risks and dangers this industry involves (and many other industries also include risks and dangers) we need to have something like the current composition of the committee.
However, to give us some understanding of the “bias” you see – what would be your “dream” composition, a composition that is “unbiased” according to your perspective?
Thank you for your comment Ken.
No, the word ‘bias’ is not a strong word in this context. The same word would have been used if the committee had a clear block of people against the law.
Individuals carry bias, but a group such as this is put together to moderate any clear bias and present a fair review of the designated law, thus your noting of the former policeman and Catholic sister could be argued to be a poor one. These people, as with all people on such a committee, will most certainly carry a bias that the collective group can moderate to form an objective analysis.
I see the function of such a committee to be along similar lines to the functioning of a jury. If a man was accused of rape and half of his jury consisted of family members of those who he was accused of raping, would we consider this an objective jury that could reasonably offer a fair assessment? Not at all. A healthy jury should consist of a wide range of possible perspectives and views.
Review committees function in much the same way. Should the committee consist of people representing groups such as the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective? By all means, but a group that benefits directly from a positive perspective of the law should not have the majority voice in such a review where the job of that review is to assess whether or not the law is successful, they should simply help collectively balance the individually represented bias’.
This isn’t to say I think the law is all bad, it is simply questioning the ability of the committee to effectively analyse the law.
Would this report have any effect on enforcing amendments to this law? Surely, there would be a parliamentary select committee formed before this happened. Are there any other reports with regard to prostitution law reform?
Chris, as far as I am aware, this review cannot force any amendments, it’s purpose is simply to evaluate the effectiveness of the law. The review can recommend amendments, but cannot make them.
If the review indicated that the law needed changing or was failing, other processes would then possibly be entered into.
At this time I am not aware of any other reports relating to the prostitution law reform in NZ, if anyone is aware of any, I would be interested in seeing them.
Your parallel of a jury is, I think, inappropriate. Surely the committee’s function is not one of judging guilty or not guilty of a crime. It’s purpose was to consider the operation of the Prostitution Reform Act, and properly considered the situation of sex workers.
Given the acknowledged danger industry participants are in I think it is to be expected that there be people on this committee who can vocalise their interests and describe their conditions.
I strongly believe that, for example, a committee considering the operation of employment, health and safety in the building industry (which is also a dangerous one) should include people who can represent the views and experience of workers in that industry.
Now, in the past such a committee could have excluded trade union officials, for example, along the same ground as your arguments about juries. But most people would argue that this would really be bias – and would be inhumane.
Ken, I can understand why you would think the analogy was inappropriate, but we will have to respectfully disagree.
The jury analogy works in that the review committee was created under the mandate of the original act to assess the effectiveness of the law. Of course it is more nuanced than simply innocent or guilty, but the make-up of the review committee is certain to effect a positive or negative review as a jury consisting of a block of one type of people will influence the outcome. Where a majority of the review committee directly benefits from a positive view of the law, and in fact, campaigned for its introduction, a positive review is assured and predetermined. That review may be correct, but without a more objective make-up to the panel we cannot know.
I do not disagree at all that those within and connected to the industry should have a voice on the committee. I have affirmed the place of the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective, but question their highly influential position on the panel.
I am aware of many people close to, connected to and in the industry who would argue that the law has damaged the health and welfare of those working in the industry. These people need to be equally heard if such a review is to be properly undertaken, but sadly their voices have been marginalised and a positive outcome almost guaranteed.
For the record, I openly endorse and advocate for a system that encourages and upholds the health, safety and well being of those in the industry. This is in no way an anti-prostitution push. Having had time to listen to and talk to some of the people in the industry, I have no desire to make their lives harder – quite the opposite.
This is a questioning of the ability of this panel to determine whether or not this law is actively achieving that when the pragmatic evidence of some working on the street and spending time in the brothels with the workers themselves would emphatically say otherwise.
Interesting post Frank. I have linked to it. Note the spelling mistake in the heading though…
Thanks for the note A.J.
Correction made without affecting the permalink to the post.
I believe the respectful disagreement really derives from perspective. There are two ways (perspectives)of looking at this issue – and as the committee itself says “the legislation was a shift from a moralist approach to prostitution to a health and human rights approach.” Considered from this later perspective I really don”t see the specific problem.
I agree in all such appointments one should also look beyond the professional status of appointees to see what other agendas they may have. Consequently I would not call the committee biased because of the appointment of a nun – who from an professional perspective I would consider most inappropriate.
I really can’t see why you wish to exclude those who have contact with the industry from the committee while at the same time using “pragmatic evidence of some working on the street and spending time in the brothels with the workers.” Surely this is the evidence the committee should be considering – rather than taking the previous moralist approach.
You yourself profess to believe that “the report makes some good observations and recommendations, including provision for more funding to help those out of the industry who no longer wish to be a part of it – something we believe is quite telling in itself about the impact and nature of the industry.” So I guess you consider it to be doing a good job.
I think a jury-type approach that you argue for, which would have excluded opinions of those in the industry, might have favoured the old moralistic approach to prostitution but would not have taken an evidence-based approach and probably would not have produced as realistic report as the current committee.
The question of perspective is important because we all know that the moralistic approach, which was all we had in the past, did nothing to solve the problems.
You need to re-read my comments, Ken. I have not argued for the exclusion of those in the industry at all, I have argued whole-heartedly for their inclusion. I would argue that the voice of the industry is not properly represented at all, apart from one block that campaigned for the law.
I am also not arguing for a moralistic approach (whatever that may mean), I am arguing for a pragmatic, truthful evaluation that properly pursues the health and safety of those in the industry.
I think this law can be shaped in a manner that better represents the health and welfare of those in the industry and I think this after having the opportunity to speak to those in the industry on the street. But I don’t think those voices are being heard. That is the issue here.
Critical voices need to be properly heard in order for the democratic process to truly be effective and for this law to be shaped into something that properly achieves its objectives:
* safeguards the human rights of sex workers and protects them from exploitation;
* promotes the welfare, occupational health and safety of sex workers;
* is conducive to public health;
* prohibits the use in prostitution of persons under 18; and
* implements certain other related reforms.
If this is the law that we must work with then let’s create the most robust process for reviewing it and shaping it that we can possibly have. I don’t believe this review committee inherently contains the ability to produce that robustness… and I am yet to see or read anything that changes my mind.
I think, then, we are on the same side.
And, in all such reviews, the position of the person at the coal face, the worker on the street, is very often ignored, devalued, or given lip-service consideration. I have certainly experienced that again and again during reviews at my workplace.
But a practical question – how would you change the composition of the committee?
Who personally or professionally would you place on such a review committee?
Ken, it’s good to see we have found a mutual meeting point in this discussion.
Your question is a good one and not something I have entirely considered yet. I need to increase my knowledge of groups and people within the industry to properly answer that. I could give some quick answers, but they would be rash and not well thought out. That would do this conversation a disservice.
I am looking into different groups and possibilities as we speak.
I suppose it depends on your definition of ‘morality’, but I find the distinction between ‘moral’ issues and ‘health and human rights’ issues to be a false one. Are health and human rights not moral issues? How can one ‘shift’ away from a moral approach?
No doubt, morality is far from ‘objective’ (moral principles aren’t neatly bullet-pointed across the sky in Sans Serif font), but this doesn’t mean we should just ‘shift’ away from it (or ignore or downplay it). Just because something is hard doesn’t mean we should give up. In fact, those hard things are often the most worth our time and energy.
Dale – I agree. Health and human rights are moral issues.
I guess the original opposition to the legislation was based on a very limited approach to morality (ignoring health and human rights) and hence the writers of this report have made that distinction.
Well I agree that the committee could de described as ‘self serving heavy’ – that is with many on it that have vested interests in it – I fail to see how this is a negative. Surely this is what and who the law is there for.
Once could argue that the remaining members are wholly inappropriate given what I imagine, is very little experience in the industry,
But that is a democracy that we live in and enjoy.
I think someone a rather more intellectual than me once said:
There’s a word for bias you can’t see – ‘yours’
Discussing the nature of the committee is a red herring. No committee has the right to introduce or manage regulations that legalise prostitution.
The only biblical response to prostitution is that it is a criminal act. If you concede that the views of a committee have authority over God’s law then you’ve lost every moral foundation available to you.
Grant Dexter.
I think you’ll find that as we live in a democracy that serves not just your delusional beliefs. As such, committee’s and laws that serve the greater, public good, have such authority. You should appreciate it.
I’m sure you moral compass has gone crazy with all this, but the fact is, the oldest profession is a danger to the workers who deserve protection and rights under the rights of humankind.
You cannot just through in ‘God’ and expect that be argument enough on why laws should or should not be passed.
I wonder if it’s even possible to “through in God”…
Regardless, there are some things that will never change regardless of democracy’s prowess.
1) It will never be OK to murder no matter what any committee says.
2) It will never be OK to kidnap no matter what any committee says.
3) It will never be OK to steal no matter what any committee says.
4) It will never be OK to rape no matter what any committee says.
So, regardless of your rejection of God, my insistence that prostitution is wrong is right in line with other moral standards.
Democracy is stupid because people like you become easily convinced that issues like this can be rightly decided by a majority. Facts are the majority is, quite commonly, wrong. And wrong in the most egregious of fashions.
here we go again, if someone wants to be a prostitute, let her be one. If someone wants to be a drug dealer, let him be one. If someone wants to do bad, we can not stop him or her with heartless comments in type on an dam internet. The best we can do human beings and people is tell them and show them the proper way to live as we think. now is that right or not, we don’t know. its only our way of thinking. so give our way of thinking and we have done our job. we can not change people, we can not make someone do what we want. GOD DONT NEED YOUR HELP IN CHANGING SOMEONES WAYS. Give your thoughts, then its out of your hands. If they decide to live their live a different way then yours. Then who knows. No one knows, will you go to heaven, will they go to heaven. Let me tell you this. No matter what kind of people they are in this world. If you search, and really try to find the truth, and you dont make excuses for yourself, you have done all a person is required to do. What more could you do. So take that and no matter what anyone else tells you, or what you see, do what you have honestly tried, and what you have give your whole heart too. Then leave everyone else alone. You can not save them. ONLY God can save them. Give them you knowledge, give them your wisdom, then your hands are washed of the matter. If you keep on bothering them, and you keep on putting them down, you are only destroying your chance at salvation. Please heed my words.
[comment deleted]
Note: Grant, your disagreements with Patrick were warranted and a reasonable response would have been left, but you have already been warned about some of the other stuff you said. Calling someone stupid or a “moron” again will result in you being banned. The inclusion of such things is what caused this comment to be deleted.
Philip, may I once again suggest here that you read the whole conversation and the post you are choosing to comment on, then comment accordingly so your comment fits the nature of the conversation rather than simply expressing your own sentiment on the wider issue of prostitution.
This post is about the perceived bias of a specific committee dealing with a specific piece of legislation in New Zealand.
Dude, what he said was utterly without merit. And you’re going to ban the guy speaking sense?
As stated, some of your disagreement was warranted. As already warned, you won’t be banned for disagreement or “speaking sense”, you will be banned for personal insults and name calling. I don’t care how justifiable you think it is.
If I see it once more I will ban you.
If he says something stupid I will be banned for calling him stupid.
Sorry, Frank. That’s a really stupid standard.
Grant, the fact that we have discussed this already and you still choose to ignore the boundaries of this blog astounds me.
Your last comment was deleted because you called him stupid and a moron. By your standards that might be acceptable, by mine it is not and it is the boundaries of this blog that you must adhere to if you wish to comment here, whether you like those boundaries or not.
I will not discuss this any further with you. You have three options:
1. Continue to ignore me and carry on as you are, commenting in such a way that will see you banned without any further warning.
2. Simply move on if you do not like the restrictions in place.
3. Work within the boundaries of the blog and continue to agree and disagree whenever you see fit, furthering your ideas and arguments within the guidelines set forth – holding your tongue where necessary to maintain the standards requested.
The choice is yours. I will sleep easy whichever option you choose