Kia ora and good morning,
My name is Lexie Matheson and I am a programme leader at AUT University, an academic and a teacher.
I am 67 years old, a European New Zealander, a citizen, a parent, a spouse, a martial arts student and the recipient of many awards.
I am an executive member of The Auckland Pride Festival Trust and Genderbridge Incorporated.
I am transgendered.
For the first time since the super city was established I feel ashamed to be an Aucklander.
I wish to make a formal complaint to Auckland City Council regarding the council produced and distributed brochure entitled The Street Prostitution Industry in the Southern Communities of Auckland.
I make this complaint on the grounds that the brochure is discriminatory, a breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 and The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in that it denigrates individuals and groups on the grounds of race, gender identity, sexuality and occupation.
The Street Prostitution Industry in the Southern Communities of Auckland brochure is a subjective, biased, unequal and unfair representation of the sex worker industry in these communities and, as such, is a gross misuse of ratepayer funding and resources. To present a series of wildly inaccurate, unanswered anecdotes as undisputed fact is deceptive and duplicitous and the resultant tone of the brochure is racist, discriminatory and of deeply questionable veracity.
In his introduction to the brochure His Worship the Mayor Len Brown cites, without substantive verification, that ‘street prostitution is a problem in the southern communities of Auckland’ and that ‘the expansion of the street sector of prostitution has been so uninhibited that it is influencing the character and reputation of these communities.’
Perhaps Mr Brown might have added that the southern communities of Auckland are also home to the poorest families in Auckland, the lowest decile schools and a level of poverty, particularly among Pasifika and Maori families, that is frightening.
There is little acceptance throughout the brochure that the sex industry is a conventional, commercial marketplace with buyers as well as sellers. Mr Brown may well have added that, while sex worker behaviour is indeed an issue, there would be no sex workers at all if they weren’t catering for a demand and that their clients must be seen as equally culpable.
Sex workers are, in fact, no different in their commercial endeavour to the liquor shop proprietors and poker machine owners who, it could easily be argued, have also grown in a way ‘so uninhibited that it is influencing the character and reputation of these communities.’
It’s not just the sex workers who bring the area into disrepute but a raft of unhealthy and anti-social activities that are tearing these communities apart. Sadly, the brochure chooses to ignore the bigger picture.
It’s interesting to note that, with one exception, all of the faces expressing their abhorrence of sex worker behaviour are middle-class European New Zealanders while all the photos of the sex workers feature Pasifika and Maori people.
There is, of course, an invisible group of participants in the sex worker industry who, as I have already indicated, are rarely mentioned. These are the sex worker’s clients. Research clearly tells us that these clients are traditionally white, middle class, employed, married, heterosexual men but the brochure makes no serious mention of them and they do not feature in any of the photographs. Maybe this is an oversight but I don’t think so.
Excluding this anonymous group calls the validity of the entire brochure into question and further amplifies the unreasoned bias of the document.
Mr Brown goes on to state that ‘the street sex trade is enjoying its unrestricted use of public space and is possibly the only industry in New Zealand to enjoy such status.’
Enjoying? Enjoy?
While, on the one hand appreciating that Mr Brown’s use of emotive language is not uncommon and that the brochure, in fact, contains much rhetoric of this nature, I doubt that the participants in the sex trade would consider that there is much in what they do to enjoy. These are people often living in abject poverty who have been disowned by their communities, frequently abused and beaten, often with multiple addictions and engaged in possibly the most degrading of all human activities. Yes, they may have usurped a somewhat unrestricted access to some public spaces but given the lives they live, often through no fault of their own, this brochure hands them a final ‘let them eat cake’ council ultimatum.
There’s no enjoyment in this type of work any more than there is a single jot of compassion in the document.
Again, there is no mention of the clients who engage in these sex acts with the sex workers and who are responsible, at least in part, for perpetuating the problem. The fact that they drive away in their cars and back to their wives and girlfriends seems to make them, in the eyes of the council, a less culpable participant.
Mr Brown, rather disingenuously I feel, speaks to the lack of licenses, authority, constraint, regulation, control and management. It would seem that he wishes to add to what is already failing rather than face the root cause of the problem which is a systemic failure of the complex social support structures that lead to poverty.
It is my view that the Summary Offences Act is sufficient to deal with the consequences of street prostitution. The problem isn’t with the Act but with its effective administration.
Perhaps Mr Brown’s most outrageous – and again emotive – claim is that ‘the actual result is that there is (sic) a growing number of new victims; ordinary New Zealanders who have nothing to do with the industry yet must endure its effects upon their lives.’
Mr Brown’s attempt to engage the ire of his ‘victims’, his ‘ordinary New Zealanders’, who must ‘endure’ the appalling behaviour of these ghastly people carefully evades the fact that this most marginalised and damaged sector of our society are the true victims and further marginalising them is a gross and cynical misuse of the role of council and simply will not work.
The mayor’s suggestion that it he had hoped ‘the Prostitution Reform Act that legalised the industry in 2003 would make it more professional, respectable and discreet’ further validates my belief that, at the heart of this document, lies a set of middle class values that have no place in resolving this problem.
His Worship claims that the reader will understand ‘how this has happened’ as they read the brochure but my reading did no such thing.
I read nothing about poverty, responsibility, compassion, humanity or a solution-based approach to the real problem. What I read was a document that blamed the already victimised, was seriously racist and classist, let the equally culpable off the hook, and took a serious swipe at the most marginalised and powerless group in our society, the transgendered.
Mr Brown claims to know these communities. He may once have been ‘in da house’ but I suspect he’s long since lost touch with the pulse of these communities and can no longer claim an empathy that many of us relied on when we voted for him.
It’s time to face the real problem in Southern Auckland: poverty, and time to stop blaming the victims.
I have already alluded to what I see as a serious imbalance in the brochure, an imbalance that suggests consultation was limited and self-serving.
I have asked the council for a detailed outline of the consultative process and who was engaged in it but have yet to receive a reply.
The powerful and complaining, with one exception (Leau Peter Skelton, Chair, Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board), are European New Zealanders of reputation and power while the sex workers are predominantly brown, transgendered and without a voice.
The solitary reference to the NZ Prostitutes Collective is dismissive.
I can safely say that neither of the groups that provide support and services to the transgendered – Genderbridge Inc and AgenderNZ – were consulted nor encouraged to make submissions which seems to be a serious shortcoming of the document.
It’s worth remembering at this point that, despite frequent requests for change before, and subsequent to, The Human Rights Commission’s publication of recommendations from the To Be Who I Am Report, transgendered New Zealanders remain outside the aegis of the Human Rights Act 1993 and are, therefore, the most vulnerable group in our society.
Sadly, this report perpetuates the myth that the transgendered are all sex workers, drug addicts and social misfits. I can assure you that this isn’t the case as many of us contribute significantly to New Zealand society, are highly educated, articulate and particularly high achievers.
The opposite is also true as many of our brothers and sisters find gaining employment impossible, finding appropriate housing difficult and face discrimination on a daily basis. This brochure has convinced me that the council is happy to discriminate, not only against sex workers in general, but the transgendered in particular and this makes Auckland a distinctly unsafe place for people like me to live, work and contribute.
Graham Mullins, Town Manager, Otahuhu Mainstreet Association is reported as saying ‘We have a comprehensive CCTV security system which has captured some appalling behaviour from the sex workers’.
Sadly, Mr Mullins doesn’t have CCTV footage of the treatment dished out to sex workers generally, and the transgendered in particular, in their everyday lives. The action of the council in producing this brochure further victimises this already marginalised and damaged minority and is, to many of us, far more ‘appalling behaviour’ than anything the sex workers could ever do. To have this done to us by our local authority is scary indeed.
‘Jane’ (real identity withheld) speaks anecdotally of a ‘transvestite’ slamming a supermarket trolley into her friend’s vehicle.
She says ‘they both confronted him and an argument started. Jane rang 111 and the transvestite struck her in the shoulder. Emergency services advised Jane and her friend to enter the vehicle and lock themselves in. The transvestite lay across the bonnet. Police arrived and completed an arrest, by which time the offender had moved over to a bus stop and sat right next to an elderly lady. Jane describes the behaviour as fairly typical.’
A ‘transvestite’?
This is a very specific term and may well not describe the person’s gender status at all.
To refer to this person as ‘him’ is provocative and completely unacceptable regardless of what this person had done.
Using the umbrella term ‘transgender’ is acceptable and people should always be referred to using the pronouns appropriate to the gender they present as. To do less is a seriously discriminating act. That the council should publish a document of this nature without researching something as simple as misgendering is shocking and, at best, suggests a bias that is a disgrace.
Adequate consultation would have picked this up immediately.
An organisation such as Genderbridge is resourced to provide staff training that may rectify this situation should the council wish to engage with it. Rainbow Youth is similarly resourced.
It’s particularly cogent that ‘Jane’ and her friend ‘confronted’ this person. Was that wise? Could this be described as provocative behaviour on ‘Jane’ and her friend’s part? We’ll never know because we have no indication beyond biased anecdote as to what preceded and may have provoked this incident. The story may serve the needs of the brochure but it certainly doesn’t survive serious scrutiny or reflection.
What relevance does the ‘fact’ that this person sat at a bus stop next to an elderly lady have? Did the ‘transvestite’ do something bad to the elderly lady? It seems not. Using the elderly to justify victimising someone seems a bit ‘dodgy’, don’t you think?
‘Jane’s’ assessment that this was ‘fairly typical behaviour’ is subjective to such a degree that it’s meaningless. What behaviour exactly? Being confronted? Sitting by elderly ladies? At this point it’s worth asking why these anecdotes were included? They paint a picture that may serve to support the aims of the brochure but they have no credibility in any real sense at all.
The brochure goes on the say ‘street prostitutes appear to have no understanding of acceptable social conduct but every understanding of their rights.’
I am prompted to ask just what is ‘acceptable social conduct?’
Misgendering a trangendered person isn’t acceptable. Confronting someone in the street or judging them as these women have been judged isn’t acceptable either.
This brochure, via these anecdotes, borders at times on hate speech because it perpetuates the view that transgendered people are fair game..
Can you see that?
I repeat, what IS unacceptable is the other side of the sex worker coin.
These women would not be working in this industry if there weren’t clients.
Again, I repeat, reputable research tells us that the customers of these women are middle class, employed, white males who are in otherwise settled relationships who, after sex with the sex worker, go home to their families.
Do I have to mention HIV, STD’s etc?
I hope not because not all of the debris of this industry gets left on the street.
Where are the photos of the sex worker’s customers in the brochure?
Not there.
I have to ask myself why?
I ask you the same question.
Shop owner (name and location withheld) makes the point that he is ‘Asian so I get a lot of racial abuse.’
I’m transgendered. I regularly get abuse too, mostly from middle class European-looking men. My brothers and sisters get it too. I’ve been beaten up also. Occasionally by middle class, heterosexual people in uniform. It goes with the territory.
It shouldn’t, but it does.
You could work to change that but instead you produce a brochure like this.
This brochure will help perpetuate an impossible situation for the transgendered. It dehumanises us, makes us things rather than people, identifies us as acceptable targets and that’s simply not good enough.
Thank you for reading my submission.
I look forward to hearing that the publication has been withdrawn and all copies destroyed.
The brochure can be viewed at: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/newseventsculture/OurAuckland/News/Pages/supporttocontrolstreetprostitution.aspx
dykiegirl 
Well done Lexie.