Masseuse Age-limit Amendment Fails (Press, 19 July 1978)

On 19 July 1978, the New Zealand Parliament debated the Massage Parlours Bill, focusing on measures regarding the employment of minors in such establishments. A Labour-led proposal to raise the minimum age for massage parlour employees from 18 to 20 was defeated during this session. The proposal was put forth by D. R. Lange, Labour MP for Mangere, who expressed concerns over the nature of some massage parlours, which he claimed catered to sexual gratification and attracted young employees who could earn in one night what their parents earned in an extended period. Lange questioned the ethics of permitting young people to work in these environments, suggesting it sent a troubling message. The Minister of Justice, Mr Thomson, opposed the amendment, arguing that individuals aged 18, who have the legal right to vote, should not be barred from employment in massage parlours. In the parliamentary debate, Dr G. A. Wall, Labour MP for Porirua, supported the age increase but faced sceptical inquiries from National MP Marilyn Waring about his understanding of the massage parlour environment since he had never frequented one. Dr Wall countered that he had treated employees of massage parlours who had experienced deep psychological impacts from their work. Another amendment proposed by Dr Wall sought to grant the Minister the authority to impose conditions that would protect the privacy of customers and staff in massage parlours, specifically suggesting the use of "free hanging curtains." However, this amendment was also dismissed by parliamentary voices. The Chairman of the Statutes Revision Committee, J. K. McLay from the National party, noted that the Labour members had previously agreed to the 18-year minimum age during committee discussions. Miss Waring and Mrs Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan also engaged in a heated exchange regarding the backgrounds of those working in massage parlours, with Waring asserting that a variety of individuals, including highly educated professionals, were employed there, contrary to Tirikatene-Sullivan's claims that workers often came from deprived backgrounds. Ultimately, both amendments proposed during the debate were unsuccessful, and only a third reading remains before the Massage Parlours Bill can become law. The discussion highlighted differing views on the implications of employment in massage parlours, the protection of young workers, and the social responsibilities of the state in regulating this industry.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand