GEORGINA BEYER (Labour-Wairarapa): I will begin my speech on the Prostitution Reform Bill today by telling the Committee that 2 or 3 weeks ago I had a grave crisis of conscience over this bill and was seriously considering changing my support for it. I was persuaded somewhat by a meeting I had with a Dr Melissa Farley, who is reputed to have provided research on the matter of prostitution. She apparently interviewed about 46 prostitutes, particularly in Auckland and Wellington. While I disagreed with her at the time, I took time afterwards to consider what she and I had debated. I also went for a walk down memory lane to visit the old haunts, so to speak, to remind myself why I was supporting this bill. When I reflected upon some of the violence and unpleasantness that occurs in this industry, I began to ask myself if I was doing the right thing in supporting this bill, and very nearly changed to not supporting it. But today I have gone back to my original feelings about the bill, because I have been reliably informed about the research of Dr Melissa Farley, and now question its credibility. As members might have done, I have received not only the preliminary report she produced, but also the questionnaire answered by those prostitutes.

I was visited by a lady by the name of Colleen Winn, who was briefly employed by Dr Melissa Farley while she was in New Zealand doing this research. Her employment ceased very quickly, because she suddenly discovered that she had a number of concerns that she could not possibly continue working with. I would like to enlighten the Committee about that, because I know some members have been using Dr Farley’s research in their speeches against this bill. I would like to read extracts from a letter Ms Winn has written to me, subsequent to a meeting I had with her last week in my constituency office. I quote: “I believe Melissa did state that Māori women were entering prostitution as young as 9 years old. Part of my position as researcher on this study was to help to collate data as I viewed all the questionnaires. I did not see these figures in the study at all. However, there were two women who stated that their first sexual experience was at age 9.” Question 13 of the questionnaire reads: “How old were you when you had your first sexual experience of any kind?” I refer members to page 3 of the research I have here, where it states: “An adolescent told us that if she were out of prostitution, she would just like to be at home. She had been in prostitution since age of 9. A Māori girl, New Zealand street prostitution, 2003.” Clearly, the answer to question 13 was put across as though it were the answer to question 1. Question 1 in the questionnaire asks: “What age were you when you first started prostitution?”

I will carry on with extracts from that letter: “On the second day of my employment with Melissa Farley, I discovered that her research project had not been seen or passed by any ethics committee in New Zealand. It was at this point that I withdrew my services as researcher and terminated my employment agreement. I have read and am aware of the ethics of psychologists working in New Zealand. I know these were not adhered to.” That is of concern in relation to this research. It is interesting to note that after Colleen Winn had raised concerns that the questionnaire had not been passed by an ethics committee in New Zealand, she told me orally that on occasions some of the prostitutes were in receipt of about $20 for answering the questionnaire. That seems a little unethical to me, but the explanation was that prostitutes charge for their time.

I continue to quote from the letter: “I am aware that Melissa gave a TV interview with the Breakfast show, and quoted a statistic as being 86 percent in New Zealand.” From what I can gather, she was referring to the second paragraph on page 2 of Dr Farley’s preliminary report: “We found significant race/ethnic differences in age of entry into prostitution: 68 percent of Māori respondents entered prostitution at the age of 17 or younger.” I make that point because television is nationwide and viewed by many people, and an incorrect impression might have been given—there is a difference between 86 percent and 68 percent.

Finally, it is the opinion of Ms Winn that this study “was not ethical, and the impact has done harm to those women and men who took part in it. It is for that reason that I am writing to the psychologists board of registration in California to lay a formal complaint regarding Melissa. I also believe that Melissa has committed an act of intentional misrepresentation of fact.” That last point was the reason Ms Winn contacted me. She also offers to talk to anybody else who wishes to clarify further some of the matters she has raised, but she just has not had the opportunity to contact members of Parliament. She also told me that Ms Farley’s research was funded by the Maxim Institute. I would have thought that such an august group might have been a little more considered in employing someone. At least, it should have passed questionnaires through the New Zealand ethics committee to make sure that the research adhered to all of that.

In reflecting back on my experiences, I asked myself what would be achieved if nothing happened with this bill and the status quo remained. That would simply not be good enough, so my support for the bill will continue. Issues have been raised that there would be an explosion of gang and criminal involvement etc. if the law were liberalised, but I do not think that will be the case. When something is opened up and is more public, with—for want of a better term—more State control, the last thing the criminals will want is to be engaged in that area, because it is fraught with all sorts of problems. They prefer to work underground—that way, they can keep out of the sight of the laws in this country as much as possible, so I believe that there are some issues around that. I will stop there for now, but I may want to speak later.