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.

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.

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?

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 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.

Correction made without affecting the permalink to the post.

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.

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.