Assumptions or accurate justifications? A critical analysis of the Select Committee report on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill 2010
In 2010 the then Manukau City Council proposed a local Bill to Parliament, the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. This Bill targeted the perceived negative consequences of street-based prostitution that existed within Manukau City. The Bill authorised the Manukau City Council to make bylaws that would specify certain places in the district where street-soliciting of prostitution could not occur. The Bill failed at its Second Reading, following a report by the Local Government and Environment Select Committee recommending that it not be passed. The three main justifications given by the Select Committee to this result are discussed in this paper and are determined as to whether they were accurate and appropriate, or if they were rather mere assumptions. These justifications are that existent laws provided a sufficient solution, the Bill would be an implicit amendment to the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, and that the Bill would face enforcement problems if enacted. This paper finds that while the majority of the justifications given by the Select Committee were accurate, this did not stand true for all their reasoning. Ultimately it is argued that greater scrutiny must be given to Select Committee reports
