Recently the UK group Nordic Model Now released a booklet comparing decriminalisation or the NZ model, with the Nordic model. This booklet relied heavily on discrediting the results of New Zealand’s Prostitution Reform Act, which introduced decriminalisation. This booklet is full of distortions and misrepresentations of the New Zealand experience. I have attempted to address a few here. This only a brief overview, I’ve simply not had time to fully analyse it.
This booklet can be found here.
In the context of the NZ model, it is vital to understand the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. While frequently confused, these are two VERY different concepts. When something is legalised, it is permitted but within the bounds strict legal restrictions. When something is decriminalised, all legal restrictions on the activity are removed. When discussing the NZ model, ONLY the direct buying and selling of sex are decriminalised. That means neither sex workers nor clients face legal sanction (though clients remain bound by laws regarding consent and sexual assault). HOWEVER activities such as brothel keeping and pimping (those with power and authority over sex workers) are not decriminalised. They are legalised, with significant restrictions imposed to limit these people’s ability to abuse and exploit the sex workers under their control. Those advocating the Nordic model frequently treat use the two approaches as synonymous. They are not.
Claims made by Nordic Model Now v the true facts.
1/ Claim: The number of sex workers in NZ has more than tripled since 2003.
Fact: The select committee report on the then Prostitution Reform Bill estimated there were about 8,500 active sex workers in 2003. The NZPC stated 7,416 in 2019, despite a 20% increase in New Zealand’s population over the same period. The supposed increase is based on the Christchurch School of Medicine’s 2008 report which calculated 2,332. However this report was based on statistical analysis of surveys in NZs three major urban centres. It very specifically cautioned this figure was likely vastly underestimating the true number. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of sex work in NZ would recognise it as ludicrously low.
2/ Claim: Decriminalisation included Decriminalising brothel keeping and pimping.
Fact: Brothel keeping and pimping were not decriminalised, they were legalised. Decriminalisation is the removal of all legal sanctions against something. Legalisation allows an activity, but imposes limitations enforced by sanctions. The PRA requires licencing and places restrictions on anyone with any authority over a sex worker. There are considerable legal sanctions if a brothel keeper or pimp ignored these restrictions.
3/ Claim: 85% of workers interviewed for the 2008 review wanted to exit the industry.
Fact: Those 85% actually reported they did not intend to stay in the industry for more than five years. A very different thing.
4/ Claim: There is no exit support in NZ.
Fact: Exit support is provided by Work and Income New Zealand, including housing support. This is explicitly included in the PRA. NZPC also provides peer support and advice. The issue comes from the WINZ benefit is between $350 and $400 per week. Sex workers can easily earn well over a $1,000 a week. The exit barrier is workers don’t want to suffer the drop in income. However any attempt to provide former sex workers with significantly greater support than the general population would, to say the least, generate considerable public opposition.
5/ Claim: NZPC does not support exiting the industry.
Fact: NZPC has a handbook it makes freely to any sex worker. It is included as part of its new worker pack. There are actually four versions of it, one general, one for trans people, one male workers and one in Chinese. All of these include information on exiting the industry. They stress NZPC will provide support. Examples include help with creating a CV, support with job or study applications, help with obtaining identity documents or opening a bank account etc.
7/ Claim: Wahine Toa Rising is a NZ peer led sex worker group campaigning for the Nordic model.
Fact: Wahine Toa Rising is a group set up by a small number of gender critical activists in March 2020 (three as far as can be told). It has been dormant since February 2021.
6/ Claim: Germany is also an example of decriminalisation.
Fact: Germany is an example of the legalisation of sex work, the so called Netherlands model. Decriminalisation is to remove all legal restrictions from an activity. Legalisation allows an activity but places legal restrictions on it. The Netherlands model has many flaws and is not advocated by any peer led sex worker group worldwide. It in no way compares to the NZ model, which is the model advocated by those peer led groups. Currently the only examples of decriminalisation other than NZ are the Northern Territory, New South Wales and Victoria in Australia.
8/ Claim: New Zealand has a significant problem with trafficking.
Fact: There is a problem with migrant workers. Opponents of the PRA inserted a clause requiring any non NZ permanent resident or citizen engaged in sex work to be deported, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. The clause was inserted at the very last minute and strongly opposed by reform advocates. There is no evidence trafficking for sex is a significant problem in NZ. There is however an issue with trafficking for fruit picking.
9/ Claim: The NZ model will lead to an explosion in the number of brothels.
Fact: Since the introduction of the PRA, there has been a steady decline in the number of brothels. There 332 applications for operators licenses in 2004, 16 in 2021, again despite a 20% increase in population. There are currently 45 active licences. The dominant model of sex work in NZ now is small worker collectives and independent workers. In 2003 there was roughly one brothel per 12,000 New Zealanders. there was one per 111,000 New Zealanders. The numbers speak for themselves.
10/ Claim: Coercion and exploitation of brothel workers is rife in NZ.
Fact: Since the PRA most workers have reported greater power in dealing with managers who suffer issues with staff retention as workers have a greater variety of alternatives to brothel work available. These things remain a problem, but the situation is improving. It should be noted, most brothels now rely heavily on migrant workers, who’s exclusion from the PRA has left extremely vulnerable.
11/ Claim: The PRA requires regular inspection of brothels.
Fact: The law contains no such provision. Inspections are conducted by District Health Boards on receipt of an official complaint.
12/ Claim: Police require a warrant to enter a brothel, hindering investigation of trafficking and underage workers.
Fact: Investigation of trafficking and underage workers in NZ falls under the Ministry of Business, Immigration and Employment. Their inspectors can enter without a warrant. If they find evidence of either they will involve the police. A MBIE report is more than sufficient to obtain a warrant. In 2021 there were eight prosecutions for trafficking, resulting in seven convictions.
13/ Claim: Since the introduction of criminalisation of buyers 2 sex workers have been murdered in Sweden (population 10 million) compared with 11 sex workers in New Zealand (population 5 million) since decriminalisation, therefore the Nordic model makes sex work safer.
Fact: This is a meaningless claim, there are so many factors involved making such a claim based on such an isolated statistic is ridiculous. In a six month period in 2020 ten sex workers were murdered in France, a country using the Nordic model. Clearly there is far more going on than just how sex work is regulated.
Further notes
Prior to the PRA, sex work was effectively legal in NZ. Brothel keeping, pimping, and soliciting were however illegal. However the first two required proof of active awareness, making them moot. The last was negated by the worker never directly offering sex. As long as the client made the initial enquiry it was legal. Workers advertised massage or escort services. This led to the ridiculous situation where it was illegal if the client directly handed money to the worker, but legal if they put it down and the worker picked it up.
Prior to the PRA, the police would regularly pose as clients in an attempt to entrap sex workers. Such operations continued up until the day the PRA was passed. Naturally this left a considerable legacy of mistrust toward the police within the NZ sex worker community. Hence, in an effort to reassure sex workers, the regulatory functions of the act were given to other government departments and the requirement for a warrant to enter a brothel was included. Sex workers trust toward the police has improved considerably since 2003, however any attempt to modify the PRA would be highly controversial and invite attempts to replace it with the Nordic model.
Many of the claims in the booklet are based on a single report by the UK’s Stand Against Sexual Exploitation, a Nordic model advocacy group. The report relies heavily on misrepresentations, isolated incidents and hearsay. It’s bias is obvious. I’ve also not fully examined that report.
The NZ model is FAR from perfect, nobody claims it is. There are still issues. Abuse and exploitation can and do still occur. Sex workers still face considerable stigma. The evils of sex trafficking and underage workers have not completely disappeared. But the situation regarding these things has improved and is continuing to improve in NZ under decriminalisation. The NZ model is simply better than any other presented, nothing more. Most certainly, the evidence supports it is a far better approach than the Nordic model. We have been attempting to eradicate sex work for centuries. Every approach tried has utterly failed. It is not going to go away. The NZ model does the best at protecting those involved.
EDIT: 19 June 2022
I wrote something more about two months after I wrote this. It’s about what those who so stridently advocate the New Zealand model are getting wrong about it. Yes I firmly believe it is the best and only way sex work should be managed, and yes it brings amazing benefits and huge changes. But those benefits and changes are not what most people seem to think they are. Trust me, they are great, I wouldn’t be a sex worker under any other system, but they are not what everyone seems to be expecting.
Dollar Girl Diaries 
This what I wrote about the other side, what all those are advocating decriminalisation are missing. Yes decriminalisation is the best and only way to manage sex work. But it doesn’t give sex workers what
most people seem to think it does. It actually gives us something much better, but it’s not what people think.
LikeLike
There’s something I don’t quite understand. In the UK where I live sex work is not illegal. Brothel keeping is illegal though, and this usually prevents women working together for safety. So I thought decriminalisation would mean women can work together and the police can’t arrest them. But in your post you say that in New Zealand brothel keeping has not been decriminalised.
Is it the case that in New Zealand women can work together without permission? I have heard there are SOOBs (Small Owner-Operated Brothels). Are the SOOBs accepted but when someone who isn’t a sex worker tries to open a brothel they need to have permission? That would make sense but I’m unsure what the situation is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In NZ you need an operators license to run a brothel or have any kind of authority or power over sex workers. The ‘exception’ are the so called SOOBs you mention (I call them worker cooperatives since they are different from brothels). The rules for these are: up to four workers, one of the workers must be normally resident at the location and while expenses can be shared, each worker must remain in control of their work and income.
This last condition is what makes different from brothels. None of the workers have power or authority over any of the others. Nor can any worker take money from any other. It’s workers acting cooperatively, sharing expenses and increasing safety.
LikeLike