The “New Zealand model” for prostitution liberalisation doesn’t work

Written By: notices and features - Date published: 6:09 am, February 4th, 2024 - 57 comments
Categories: feminism, sexism, violence against women, women's rights party - Tags: prostitution, sunil williams

lprent: There is an unsubstantiated assertion of fact in this Guest post that the Green party has been putting pressure to relax section 19 of the Prostitution Law Reform Act 2003. See my comment at the end of the post

weka: The Women’s Rights Party have responded, see the end of the post.

Cross-posted from The Women’s Rights Party website.

Sunil Williams January 31, 2024

It is 20 years since the passing of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, which fully decriminalised prostitution in New Zealand.

The Women’s Rights Party, New Zealand and the Women’s Declaration International – New Zealand are concerned that women’s rights and safety are not being upheld under the current legislation.

The evidence we have included in our joint submission to Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, for her Report to the Human Rights Council on Prostitution and Violence Against Women and Girls, shows that the “New Zealand model” is not working to protect the rights, welfare and safety of women and girls, or to protect them from violence and harm, even though this was a stated purpose of the 2003 legislation.

We are seeking a full review of the legislation, including the consideration of alternatives to the current full decriminalisation approach and for resources to be provided for women to exit prostitution.

TO: Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls
Submission to the report of the Special Rapporteur on VAWG to the Human Rights Council on prostitution and violence against women and girls.

Submitted by:
The Women’s Right’s Party, New Zealand
Women’s Declaration International, New Zealand

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.
The Women’s Rights Party New Zealand is a registered political party that promotes the sex- based rights of women and girls in New Zealand.¹

The Women’s Declaration International promotes the sex-based rights of Women and girls in accordance with the principles of the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women.² Both organisations stand against all forms of violence against women and girls.

New Zealand legislation

It is twenty years since the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, which fully decriminalised prostitution in New Zealand, was passed. ³

The Women’s Rights Party, New Zealand and the Women’s Declaration International – New Zealand are concerned that women’s rights and safety are not being upheld under the current legislation. The evidence does not show that the “New Zealand model” is working to protect the rights, welfare and safety of women and girls, or to protect them from violence and harm, even though this was a stated purpose of the 2003 legislation.⁴

A 2008 Review by the Ministry of Justice showed that decriminalisation has not stopped violence against women in postitution. This is explained in a 2016 report from the Stop Demand Foundation, from which we include material in this submission. We attach a copy of the report.⁵

A promised 2018 Review from the New Zealand Government never materialised.⁶

An in-depth review in 2023 revealed similar concerns, and pointed out that brothel inspections, which were mandated by the legislation are not happening.⁷

We would like a full review of the legislation, including the consideration of alternatives to the current full decriminalisation approach. We urgently call for resources to be provided for women to exit prostitution.

In 2016 the Stop Demand Foundation noted that despite decriminalisation, violence against women in prostitution continues to be rife.

In the attached copy of their report, they note:⁸

Prostitution has its roots in gender inequality.
Prostitution is a highly gendered system, which facilitates and perpetuates harm and violence by men towards women.
Globally, violence towards women in prostitution is rife.
Decriminalisation has not prevented women who are prostitutes from being ivciously murdered.
Women cannot be protected from the violence and harms that are inherent within
prostitution. Women can only be protected by dismantling the sex trade.
While stigmatisation against prostitution largely persists, removing the stigma of illegality through decriminalisation has paved the way for desperate women to proceed down a potentially destructive path from which it can be difficult to recover.
Decriminalisation has removed some of the associated stigma amongst our youth, including girls as young as 13, as well as the abusers who rape and sexually exploit them.
Prostitution is not “work like any other.” No industry that is inherently predicated
on gendered violence, inequality and degradation should be elevated to the
status of work.⁹

They note, specifically, that in a 12-month period following decriminalisation, a Ministry of Justice Report (2008) found:

Of women engaged in street prostitution

39% had been threatened with physical violence
31% experienced refusal by client to pay
24% had money stolen by a client
13% had been physically assaulted by clients
11% had received abusive text messages from clients
10% had been held somewhere against their will

Of women engaged in the managed indoor sector (e.g. brothels)

10% had been physically assaulted by clients

Of women engaged in the private indoor sector

(eg small owner-operated brothels (SOOB), purportedly the “safest” sector)

36% had received abusive text messages from clients
16% had been threatened with physical violence
12% had experienced refusal by clients to pay¹⁰

Stop Demand summarises the impacts of decriminalisation of prostitution:

it is luring desperate young women, from New Zealand and overseas, into
prostitution.
it has led to a rise in child prostitution.
it has not prevented murders of women in prostitution.
it has not prevented other forms of violence against women in prostitution.
some women are forced to operate in unsafe and slave like conditions where often
the only redress is through the Employment Court.
it has led to “bargain-basement” sex for sale prices
it has not deterred unsafe sex practices.
it continues to entrench gender inequality.
it has led to an increase in unlicenced brothels.
it assists traffickers by removing a major obstacle within prostitution, its illegality.
it has increased sex tourism.¹¹

A recent evidence-based review by Auckland researcher Tony Pitt and UK-based Helen Johnson from Stand Against Sexual Exploitation (SASE) highlighted several significant concerns:

Increased numbers of prostitutes.
Health and safety violations – and the reality of violence.
Low rates of reporting and prosecuting violations.
The black market, including internal trafficking.
Lack of support for exiting the industry.
Brothel inspections: are mandated but not happening.
Failure to implement recommended changes. A review of the law reform in 2008
made 28 recommendations, however only 11 have been implemented.¹²

There has been pressure in New Zealand from the Green Party and others to relax our immigration laws to allow women to come into the country in order to enter the sex trade here. We oppose such a step, which would amount to the encouragement of international trafficking.

Already, in New Zealand, many girls enter prostitution at a very young age, and may be homeless, having fled violent homes. This is often a form of domestic trafficking.¹³¹⁴

The Women’s Rights Party is also concerned that pornography, which includes filmed prostitution, rough sex, strangulation, other forms of violence, and sexual abuse, sends a message that such violence and abuse of women is acceptable.

Some personal stories from survivors of prostitution

These stories illustrate the vulnerability of the young women, the lack of meaningfu
choice or consent, the violence and rape inherent in prostitution, the child abuse, and
the fact that decriminalisation did not stop this and in some ways may have worsened it.

Michelle Mara

“After decrim, nothing changed. The police had never bothered us anyway. If they were going to check, we always got a heads up. I saw a cop maybe twice.”

“But it also did change. I felt less safe. I didn’t know what it was at the time. But looking
back it was a shift in the structure. More responsibility was on us.”

“After decrim there were fees for everything and no mercy. The sense of solidarity was gone between the girls because we worked ‘to appointment.’ We passed like ships in the cold hard daylight. No music, no illusion. Legal was hell.”

“Since decriminalisation was introduced in 2003, the only illusion that’s left is the one women now tell themselves – that it’s real legitimate work. We know it’s not but that’s all that’s left to throw at the world. No woman in the sex trade will be able to say otherwise because you have to survive, and anyone who tries to say you are a victim is attacking the illusion. The vital illusion.”¹⁵

Chelsea Geddes

“I am one of those women who are said to be here by choice. No one person groomed me into this choice, granted I was underage when I was first faced with this choice but it was still my own ‘choice’ as you define the word.”

“That element of choice didn’t make the experiences I have had over the years in the industry and with johns any different to the experiences that someone trafficked or tricked into the industry by a Romeo would have had with those same johns.”

“And the fact that a woman’s choice is unequal to a man’s choice in this society is why prostitutes are mostly women and girls, and why johns are nearly always men, and why pimps put their money behind the ‘feminist’ “It’s a woman’s choice” line in media and advertising, and it’s why we need feminism at all.”¹⁶

“I wanted to stay in school, and I needed an adult to take me in permanently… A school friend introduced me to Brian…Brian would later be convicted of 47 charges related to sexual assault against 14 boys aged 9-16. I was only 16 at the time of his arrest, but somehow didn’t factor as a victim of rape and abuse by this man, because without him I was homeless. I was without parents and had nowhere to go.” ¹⁷ ¹⁸

Allie Marie Diamond

“My very first client was obese and sweaty. As we walked in the room and he got undressed, and stepped into the shower, I had to stop myself from gagging. The smell, the sweaty, crusty stench filled my nostrils, and as I took a breath in, I could feel my stomach contents hit the bottom of my throat. Not long after he was out of the shower, he picked me up and threw me across the room, yelling I was nothing but a useless black bitch, who couldn’t even get him hard. He slapped me with so much force, the sting on my skin bought me to tears but I fought them back, not wanting to show any weakness.”

“‘Sex work’ is a glorified term for paid rape! Those men never paid me for my time company. They paid to fuck me in every single hole they could find, even when I said no. Getting fucked 20 times or more a day is NOT Work. This is terrorism against women. A sustained international attack on vulnerable women, girls, children.”¹⁹

Conclusion

There is strong evidence that decriminalistion has not worked in New Zealand to protect women and girls from violence and harm. Reviews of the 2003 legislation and testimony from survivors suggest that violence and harm may be inherent in prostitution.

We call for a new review of the New Zealand legislation, to assess its success in protecting women and girls from violence, harm, exploitation, and in promoting their health and welfare. The review should include a consideration of Nordic/Equality models from overseas which prosecute those who benefit from the exploitation of prostitutes but do not prosecute the prostitutes themselves and instead, assist them to exit prostitution.

Chimene del la Varis and Jill Ovens, Co-Leaders Women’s Rights Party, New Zealand Janet, Women’s Declaration International- New Zealand contact person

lprent: I can see no evidence of “the Green party pressure” in the post anywhere. I also see no evidence of it on searching the net. I can see discussion in select committee and parliament related to the original act, select committee submissions, and in the light of a UN recommendation in 2018.

I am not interested in operating a site that posts an article using the worst and most effective smear tactics of Whaleoil by using unsubstantiated and probably false assertions of fact to smear others. I am concerned now that The Women’s Rights Party is currently using these tactics.

Unless there is a clear clarification that satisfies me at a legal and political level and a commitment to not put this site at risk, no further cross-posts from The Women’s Right Party will be allowed on this site. I may also start monitoring their material and highlighting any repeated instances that I find with my opinion about such deliberate tactics.

weka: the Women’s Rights Party responded:

We have reviewed the evidence and can confirm that repeal of s19 of the Prostitution Reform Act, which effectively bans temporary Visa holders from working in the sex industry in New Zealand, is being called for and has been on the agenda ever since s19 was added to the proposed legislation.

In fact there was a petition to Parliament reported on Stuff, 17 April 2018 with the intro: “New Zealand must legalise sex work for migrants to prevent human trafficking, sex industry advocates say.” Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Jackie Blue is one of several quoted in that article saying the legislation should be amended to include migrants.

Of many Stuff articles on the subject of repeal of s19, Ricardo Menendez March, Green Party Immigration spokesperson, is quoted by Mildred Armah, Stuff, 7 August 2023, as saying the legislation is completely “dehumanising” and that “Politicians are too scared to do what is right for a community that has traditionally been scapegoated by people in power.”

Nevertheless, we have decided to revise our statement, citing the latest Stuff article to the following:

There has been pressure in New Zealand to repeal s19 of the Prostitution Reform Act which bans temporary Visa holders from working in the sex industry.[1] We strongly oppose repeal of the provision, which would amount to the encouragement of international trafficking.

[1] Sex workers ‘afraid’ of reporting abuse, fearing deportation | Stuff

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/103129627/no-trafficking-in-nz-sex-industry-but-migrant-abuse-is-widespread-report-finds%5D

https://womensrightsparty.nz ↩︎
Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
↩︎
Prostitution Reform Act 2003 ↩︎
ibid 3.Purpose ↩︎
https://www.stopdemand.org/webfiles/StopDemandNZ/files/Prostitution_Submission_Stop_Demand_Foundation_New_Zealand.pdf ↩︎
WDI FQT AUS/NZ Michelle Kelly ‘Why the New Zealand Prostitution Law Harms Women in the Sex
Trade’ ↩︎
https://familyfirst.org.nz/2023/06/25/prostitution-law-review-benefits-exaggerated-shortcomings-
ignored-denied-or-hidden/ ↩︎
Submission on Prostitution to UN Women from Stop Demand Foundation. ↩︎
Submission on Prostitution to UN Women from Stop Demand Foundation pages 2-5 ↩︎
ibid, Appendix A, p7. ↩︎
ibid, Appendix B, p9. ↩︎
https://familyfirst.org.nz/2023/06/25/prostitution-law-review-benefits-exaggerated-shortcomings-
ignored-denied-or-hidden/ ↩︎
https://wahinetoarising.nz/survivor-stories/new-zealands-reality/ ↩︎
https://nordicmodelnow.org/testimonial/ally-marie-diamond/ ↩︎
https://nordicmodelnow.org/testimonial/michelle-mara/ ↩︎
https://nordicmodelnow.org/testimonial/olivia/
↩︎
https://nordicmodelnow.org/testimonial/olivia/ ↩︎
https://wahinetoarising.nz/survivor-stories/new-zealands-reality/ ↩︎
https://nordicmodelnow.org/testimonial/ally-marie-diamond/ ↩︎

57 comments on “The “New Zealand model” for prostitution liberalisation doesn’t work ”

Comments are now closed

bwaghorn 1

4 February 2024 at 7:09 am

There has been pressure in New Zealand from the Green Party and others to relax ourimmigration laws to allow women to come into the country in order to enter the sex tradehere.

Wff ????

Some times the greens just make me shake my head with disbelief!
- Grey Area 1.1
  
  4 February 2024 at 8:19 am
  
  I notice there are plenty of references in the article but nothing to back up that particular claim.
  
  I couldn't find anything about it online in a quick check including in the Greens immigration policy.
  - You_Fool 1.1.1
    
    4 February 2024 at 8:23 am
    
    Yeah, I think that claims needs a
    
    *citation needed
  - Dawn Trenberth 1.1.2
    
    4 February 2024 at 12:21 pm
    
    It is in their women's policy https://www.greens.org.nz/womens_policy in the strategic priorities part at the end.
    - Support sex work being legal and regulated under civil rather than criminal law, including migrant sex workers. (8.1)
    - weka 1.1.2.1
      
      4 February 2024 at 12:33 pm
      
      thanks Dawn, that's a good start. It doesn't however read to me as if the Greens are using pressure to relax immigration law in order to allow women to immigrate here to do sex work.
      
      While I agree there are serious problems with their position, it reads to me more like they are pro-immigration generally, and within that they want to protect sex workers who are migrants. ie they want to protect migrant women in NZ who are doing sex work by removing criminality (which is obviously an additional issue for migrant women).
      
      For reference, the quote from the post,
      
      There has been pressure in New Zealand from the Green Party and others to relax our immigration laws to allow women to come into the country in order to enter the sex trade here. We oppose such a step, which would amount to the encouragement of international trafficking.
      - weka 1.1.2.1.1
        
        4 February 2024 at 12:34 pm
        
        from the full policy doc,
        
        Issues
        
        Sex workers are safer, healthier and more willing to go to police since sex work was decriminalised, but stigma remains a pervasive problem. The safety of migrants involved in sex work is compromised by its illegality.
        
        Actions
        
        8.1. 8.2.
        
        Support sex work being legal and regulated under civil rather than criminal law, including migrant sex workers.
        
        https://assets.nationbuilder.com/beachheroes/pages/9637/attachments/original/1683326641/Policy-Greens_Womens-Policy-2014-2023.pdf?1683326641
        
        lprent 1.1.2.1.1.1
        
        4 February 2024 at 9:07 pm
        
        FFS: I have no idea what the TWRP reads when they read legislation
        
        Support sex work being legal and regulated under civil rather than criminal law, including migrant sex workers.
        
        I will give the short version. What they say is that they support the existing Prostitution Reform Act – the one that has been here for 20 years. That the TWRP appears to not want to support it is a point of difference. But in this case it means that the TWRP are the radicals.
        
        You know, the one that made sex work legal and mostly governed by civil law.
        
        There are certain parts of the sex industry still under criminal law. The problem is that they are pretty much the same laws that everyone is under.
        
        From memory, they have to do with not making people under the age of 18 do sex work (no-one is allowed to force people to work and no-one is allowed to become a soldier before certain ages), not having unprotected sex in sex work (requirement on both the worker and the client), requiring a operators license for operating a brothel (just like having a gun shop and other activities), makes it criminal to force sex (it is called rape), and requiring consent at all times, and the usual criminal laws.
        
        Payment and service are civil matters.
        
        The majority of people with temporary visas here also have to conform to the conditions on their visa or they can face deportation. This again is exactly the same as any visitor. One of those is about numbers of hours of work on a visitors visa (20 hours a week?), which appears to be the one used most often to deport sex workers.
        
        Another is that a visa may not be issued for being involved in sex work. Any visa can be removed if it can be shown that it is being used for sex work.
        
        The Greens didn't say that they want to get rid of s19. They said that they want better support for migrant sex workers.
        
        The illegality about visas isn't criminal law. Violating the immigration act isn't a criminal offence – it just gets you deported and makes it very difficult to get a visa again.
        
        When you reduce it down, based on Dawns' comment, she seems to be saying that the Greens simple statement …
        
        The safety of migrants involved in sex work is compromised by its illegality.
        
        … is somehow a statement of intent to remove s19. Which wasn't said as being the solution. It was a statement identifying a problem that they wanted to help to fix.
        
        BTW: from what I know and the material I have read today, it would be extremely hard to find anyone who would say that statement by the Greens was incorrect.
        
        It would be like saying that sex work brings absolutely no problems with it. Or that we eradicate eliminate sex work entirely. Or that the Swedish model of sex work (prosecuting clients) stops road side prostitution. None of those things are true either.
        
        So far I haven't seen anything that indicates that the TWRP has any better alternatives.
        
        weka …
        
        4 February 2024 at 10:40 pm
        
        Jill clarified below. It's about repeal of s. 19. Green MP Menendez is quoted in a Stuff piece supporting repeal.
        
        https://thestandard.org.nz/the-new-zealand-model-for-prostitution-liberalisation-doesnt-work/#comment-1988066
        
        lprent …
        
        5 February 2024 at 1:19 am
        
        As the Green Party differing view said in "Report of the Education and Workforce Committee Petition of Pandora Black: Repeal Section 19 of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003"
        
        As migrant sex workers are currently forced to work illegally, they are especially vulnerable to exploitation. A migrant may be forced to perform sex work they do not wish to engage in under threat of being reported to Immigration New Zealand.
        
        ….
        
        Even if no operators were approved as accredited employers, repealing section 19 would make it harder for potential offenders to distinguish between those working legally, such as students and those working on holiday partnership visas, and those working illegally. We believe this would help reduce targeted violence.
        
        The arguments for repealing s19 on the first quote would probably pass through parliament without much of stir today. Essentially Pandora Black proved her case about the issues with s19. As she pointed out
        
        Ms Black said the Prostitution Reform Act has been a success because sex workers were involved in the process and listened to as experts. She said that, at the time the bill was being considered, sex workers opposed section 19 as counterproductive and harmful, but were ignored.
        
        But repealing or changing s19 won't pass parliament (or for that matter gain my support) because of the immigration problems. The kicker is that it would make little to no difference. The second quote from the Green Party differing view makes no sense at any level apart from compassion – it is a wishful fantasy and simply won’t solve anything.
        
        I can't see a lot of support for cutting work visas for other industries to provide room for commercial sex work. It'd raise a fire storm from employers desperate for labour in a constrained market. It'd probably resurrect the false offshore student scam that so distorted our educational institutions that most are still in dire straits years after a pandemic cut the guts out of that financial lifeline. etc..
        
        So what we will get is what MoBIE states in their submission to the committee
        
        MBIE said that, if section 19 were repealed, it is not clear whether the Government would grant Accredited Employer Work Visas for commercial sexual services. The Accredited Employer Work Visa is the main pathway for temporary work visas. It allows migrants to work in a specified occupation, for a specified employer, on the basis of a labour market shortage. It does not allow migrants to be self-employed. They have to be in an employment relationship.
        
        MBIE noted that repealing section 19 would not materially change the situation for people working outside their visa conditions. They would still want to avoid attention of the authorities because they would still be working unlawfully and potentially be liable for deportation.
        
        Migrants who held open work visas would be able to be sex workers if section 19 were repealed. MBIE said that this would likely lead to an increase in fraudulent applications for student visas from non-genuine students. MBIE said that this concern was noted when the Act was being considered by the House, alongside concerns that it would be difficult for labour inspectors to determine whether foreign nationals were being exploited.
        
        I can't see any immediate obvious way around this conundrum. We can't change out immigration system to accommodate just one sector with a issue. The horticultural sector is bad enough for exploitation and it is largely legal operations that have been the worst offenders.
        
        I'm unconvinced by the MoBIE solution of a phone line and a spreading awareness. These are mostly people on short term visas. They are going to get scammed by exploiters feeding them invalid information and delivering them into fear of INZ.
        
        We have now had 20 years of people arriving to be sex workers on mainly on tourist visas which didn't allow any work, and they still come in thinking that it is legal to work – which it isn't. Student visas and partner visas also have restrictions on the amount of work. They'll just get exploited to induce debt slavery – just ask half of Auckland's Uber drivers.
        
        I agree with Pandora Black. But I don't think that repealing s19 will do anything productive on its own because it won't change the issue. So it isn't the problem. Have to at least partially solve the problem first. We do have a basis in that even if they are illegals they have legal protections built into legislation, and hopefully generally a willingness by MoBIE and the police to focus on the problem people rather than the victims. Problem is that they don't know that what protections are there or how to access them.
        
        I'll have a think about it. Currently hard labour for exploiters in the horticultural, construction, and sex worker industries being sent to clean up the Auckland Island habitats is coming up very high in my thoughts.
        
        //——————
        
        Incidentally, the Nordic model that the TWRP has been pushing was interesting to me at a economic level 20 years ago. However it has proved to be a complete pile of obscene shit in practice. That got really interesting when I dug down a little.
        
        It is a travesty of an approach and is in my opinion far far more dangerous to societal corruption than what we have here. It looks like a classic case for how to drive a industry without diminishing demand from both customer and suppliers with a prohibition and then making it uglier, sleazier and more violent.
        
        I must dig out the old Economist articles I read then, and then compare them with the reports I just read now.
        
        Craig H …
        
        5 February 2024 at 3:51 pm
        
        As someone who used to be an Immigration Officer, my particular concern would be student visa holders with work conditions (usually 20 hours/week).
        
        Migrants being brought here on work visas get a good range of information and there is a requirement for new migrant employees to be given paid work time to go through MBIE modules for new employees. However, even despite that, there are problematic employers who badly exploit workers anyway.
        
        Students don't even get that level of protection and many have large loans back home to cover tuition etc. so can easily end up in a desperate financial situation where they end up being coerced into this type of work. It would also be a simple trafficking model (find potential students, fund tuition, make this part of getting the loan/tuition funding).
        
        Craig H …
        
        5 February 2024 at 3:40 pm
        
        Agree with you that likely would continue to be the case even if any changes came about.
        
        Generally visitors can't work while on a visitor visa for any number of hours per week (maybe you are thinking of students who often can work 20 hours/week on a student visa?), and work is defined as activity for gain or reward. Even with a legislative change, temporary visa holders would still need a condition that allowed work either generally (e.g. working holidaymakers) or specifically (e.g. accredited employer work visas).
- bwaghorn 1.2
  
  4 February 2024 at 5:54 pm
  
  More than happy for my original comment to be removed as it's looking like a load of bs sold as fact to a gullible fool with a jersey knee
  - weka 1.2.1
    
    4 February 2024 at 6:47 pm
    
    Not sure if you saw them, but the updates are here
    
    https://thestandard.org.nz/the-new-zealand-model-for-prostitution-liberalisation-doesnt-work/#comment-1988015
    
    https://thestandard.org.nz/the-new-zealand-model-for-prostitution-liberalisation-doesnt-work/#comment-1988066
    - bwaghorn 1.2.1.1
      
      4 February 2024 at 6:52 pm
      
      Can't speak legalize, did the greens want migrant sex workers to be given visas?
      - weka 1.2.1.1.1
        
        4 February 2024 at 10:09 pm
        
        they want to repeal the legislation section that currently prohibits sex workers from getting visas to work here. That section also allows people with temporary visas already here to be deported if they do sex work.
        
        I can see why the Greens want to repeal it, but I can't see how this wouldn't lead to sex trafficking.
        
        bwaghorn 1.2.1.1.1.1
        
        5 February 2024 at 12:11 pm
        
        I'm against it, the problem is people will game it to import workers and inslave them ,
        
        Make life better for the locals yes, don't import more.
  - Grey Area 1.2.2
    
    4 February 2024 at 9:24 pm
    
    Jersey knee? An internet search leads me to many links for women's fashion.
    - bwaghorn 1.2.2.1
      
      5 February 2024 at 12:10 pm
      
      When the knee jerks it short circuits the proof reading function.
You_Fool 2

4 February 2024 at 8:21 am

How does sending the girls to jail help in any if this? It seems the best thing is the same anywhere else, actually fund a public regulatory body to actually enforce the rules and ensure that women and girls in these situations can actually get justice for crimes committed against them.

Criminalizing prostitution harms women more… men raping women is a crime regardless, so work on ensuring those scum are locked up… paying for sex doesn't give you full rights to do what you please…
- weka 2.1
  
  4 February 2024 at 8:47 am
  
  The post says,
  
  The review should include a consideration of Nordic/Equality models from overseas which prosecute those who benefit from the exploitation of prostitutes but do not prosecute the prostitutes themselves and instead, assist them to exit prostitution.
  
  You can read about it here
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model_approach_to_prostitution
  
  Criminalizing prostitution harms women more…
  
  Citation needed, eh.
  
  men raping women is a crime regardless, so work on ensuring those scum are locked up… paying for sex doesn't give you full rights to do what you please…
  
  The submission was pointing out that even in a very liberal/progressive country like NZ, decriminalisation doesn't work. Who are these people that are going to step up and ensure women are safe from overt violence?
  
  And even if they do, how do you envisage women's wellbeing in an economy where women are economically coerced into prostitution?
  - SPC 2.1.1
    
    4 February 2024 at 3:25 pm
    
    The submission was pointing out that even in a very liberal/progressive country like NZ, decriminalisation doesn't work.
    
    And what does?
    
    We have laws against rape. That no particular set of rules works well is no reason not to have legislation.
    
    One problem is we do not monitor standards/regulations well – not for rental homes or the oversight of the circumstanced of migrant workers etc and we now have a government that wants to reduce the number of people employed in the government sector.
    - Brigid 2.1.1.1
      
      4 February 2024 at 7:29 pm
      
      'And what does?'
      
      Teach your sons that women are not commodities.
      
      Teach your sons of the fiction, that prostitution is a woman's choice, therefore a legitimate occupation.
- Jill Ovens 2.2
  
  4 February 2024 at 2:36 pm
  
  No one is suggesting criminalising "the girls" as you put it. The argument is about stopping the demand as in the Nordic model.
  - lprent 2.2.1
    
    4 February 2024 at 9:22 pm
    
    From what I have read, the Nordic model hasn't showing any indications of stopping demand. It has probably increased the exploitation of sex workers.
    
    Try reading Wikipedia's summary of its efficacy.
    
    After reading that, I really don't want it here. It reads like the worst possible failure of a ill-conceived compromise between demand and supply imaginable. Guaranteed to force a prohibition and a more exploitative and violent underground market.
KJT 3

4 February 2024 at 9:39 am

Decriminalisation needs to be coupled with adequate wages, welfare and social support for women, to be effective.

The ongoing culture of mean spiritedness in all these areas, forces women into choices that they wouldn't otherwise make.
SPC 4

4 February 2024 at 1:43 pm

There has been pressure in New Zealand from the Green Party and others to relax ourimmigration laws to allow women to come into the country in order to enter the sex tradehere.

The Green Party is influenced by the advocacy of others. In this instance the advocacy of the Prostitutes Collective.

This is similar to other "unions", that advocate for seasonal workers or migrant workers that are not citizens.

While I do not support them on this, because of the risk of trafficking, one should at least note the context of the advocacy.
- Descendant Of Smith 4.1
  
  4 February 2024 at 2:06 pm
  
  I assume the rationale is the same as for legalisation in the first place. They are coming in anyway and remain unknown and unregulated.
  
  In fact a quick search shows this to be the case.
  
  In a 2018 report, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) recommended the government amend Section 19 of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, which prohibits non-citizens or residents to engage in the sex industry.
  
  The Committee said Section 19 "may have a negative impact on migrant women" and that "migrant women engaged in prostitution may be exposed to exploitation and are at risk of trafficking, owing to the ban on engaging in prostitution imposed on migrants, which prevents them from reporting abuse for fear of deportation".
  
  https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/500839/migrants-still-prohibited-from-sex-industry-despite-un-report
  
  The opposing point of view is that the section currently prevents exploitation by not allowing.
  
  Prior to RSE there were massive numbers of illegal workers in orchards, etc. Regulation and RSE reduced this but did not stop all exploitation. We've seen the same with the recent regulations for essential workers – exploitation didn't stop.
  
  I think it is not useful to consider exploitation as ceasing as the end goal – it is a fundamental part of capitalism. I'd support the change even if it meant only a proportion of sex-workers from overseas were safer than they are now.
  
  Like other legislation it likely relies on the tracking and enforcement by the quite useless, unwilling to administer, employer captive and under-resourced MBIE and immigration.
  
  I'm not sure either position is right or wrong in this case – both have their pros and cons.
  - lprent 4.1.1
    
    4 February 2024 at 3:40 pm
    
    What is interesting is the position of the immigration department.
    Migrants still prohibited from sex industry, despite UN report
    
    INZ General Manager Richard Owen said the agency undertook compliance work to identify and refuse entry to foreign sex workers seeking to enter New Zealand.
    
    “Temporary migrants, who breach their visa conditions by working in the New Zealand sex industry, are vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous employers and clients.
    
    “We manage these matters on a case-by-case basis, with all relevant options applicable to the migrant taken into consideration. However, in some cases the outcome may be deportation.”
    
    Owen said there were no current operations focused on non-New Zealanders intending to work in the sex industry while on a temporary visa.
    
    “However, we actively screen for various types of non-compliant behaviour like this on an ongoing basis.”
    
    Somewhere this morning I also saw a quote from INZ saying that they only do a very limited number of removals due to s19. Something like a few dozen. Most deportations have to do with violations of visa requirements… ummm interesting paper.
    Unfinished Decriminalization: The Impact of Section 19 of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 on Migrant Sex Workers’ Rights and Lives in Aotearoa New Zealand
    
    2. Actions by Immigration New Zealand Affecting the Research
    
    INZ increased their actions against MSWs following the 2017 election, which culminated in claims they were racially profiling people (Fraser 2018). The Minister of Immigration, concerned about these claims, instructed INZ to cease this practice (Trevett 2018). Between July 2015 and May 2019, INZ refused entry to 481 suspected or known foreign sex workers, while another 43 were stopped from boarding or offloaded from aircraft before leaving their countries for New Zealand with the supposed sexual humanitarian aim of protecting vulnerable women, often coming from Hong Kong, China and Brazil (McCann 2019). Although that covers a three-year period, it is a significant increase on earlier figures, when Lincoln Tan (2013), a New Zealand Herald journalist covering immigration matters, reported “In the 12 months to April [2013], 45 foreigners holding valid working visas were refused entry for breaching their visa conditions, including working as prostitutes”.
    
    While migrants in occupations other than sex work are also deported for breach of their visa conditions4, sex work is the only occupation prohibited in law, making it specifically illegal for migrants to work in the sex industry in New Zealand, and thus making them liable for deportation solely on the basis of their involvement in sex work. No other occupation is targeted in this way, even where considerable exploitation is documented5.
    
    The rest of the interviews in the paper were interesting counterpoint to the quotes by sex workers in the TWRP article above. It makes the question about s19 much clearer about if it protects or causes problems for foreign sex workers who are coming here. s19 put them outside the bounds of the legal protection that resident sex workers have. It clearly makes them vulnerable to exploitation as they feel that they have to hide from INZ and police.
    
    Similarly there is a paper at the natlib on legal issues that was pretty interesting. p277 / p281 of PDF. “Sex work in New Zealand A case for repeal of section 19 of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003”
    - Descendant Of Smith 4.1.1.1
      
      4 February 2024 at 4:30 pm
      
      In some ways you get the cobra effect and we are seeing this in the exploitation of students and other workers.
      
      If once here you offer too much protection eg you have been exploited to get here (such as paying massive fees for semi-existent jobs and putting family back home in debt to get you one the the list to come here or to be accepted as a student) so we will give you residency then that encourages further the exploitation. On the other hand if you have a strict rule that you will always be deported to discourage such exploitation then no one will tell.
      
      https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/systems-thinking-and-the-cobra-effect
      
      This is of course the problem with much right-wing and religious thinking – they too often see simple cause and effect e.g. anyone can be wealthy if they just make the effort, if I escaped poverty then anyone can, young people need bootcamps to sort them out.
      - lprent 4.1.1.1.1
        
        4 February 2024 at 9:42 pm
        
        Yep. There is a problem about how not to have that effect happen, but still have the access into migrant communities to have an ability to deal with the real exploitative issues.
        
        One way of course is to allow the police and immigration latitude to ignore when it isn't a blindingly obvious issue. Which is pretty much what we have done and why it doesn't appear to have spiralled out of control into either wide trafficking or total silence about problems. I haven't read or heard anything about seeing injuries and bodies turn up at hospitals and morgues or passports being held or debt slavery. I don't know for sure about that.
        
        What is obvious is the studies that I have glanced through is that there is a reluctance for visa holders to be visible to either the police or immigration.
        
        It wouldn't surprise me if there isn't a informal watchdog network going on around the sex worker industry to deal with the more egregious abuses.
tWig 5

4 February 2024 at 2:20 pm

A quick search shows this is Family First political material. Family First is a NZ political organisation focused on Christian morals in our society. The authors of the report are retired engineer and UK migrant Pitt, and Johnson, a UK researcher who runs an organisation to transition exploited women out of prostitution.

Aspects of prostitution, such as pimping, brothel keeping and sex trafficking are criminalised in the UK. There is also a radical feminist movement in the UK pushing to criminalise all sex work and to prosecute clients, rather than sex workers.

According to Wikipedia 'global human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and committee of the United Nations …call for the decriminalization of sex work.

The legislation in NZ came about due to collective action by sex workers, including Georgina Beyer, with the aims of destigmatising sex work and improving worker safety by prosecution of assaults and workplace safety violations (NZ Prostitute's Collective research reports).

The issue is not that current legislation is bad, but that, like other work safety legislation, monitoring is clearly inadequate. To be a sex worker here you must be over 18 and a NZ or Oz citizen or resident.

That covers accusations above that the NZ law supports underage sex work and sex trafficking. It clearly doesn't. However, it relies on careful migrant monitoring, where the job for a supported migrant is falsified. It also requires strong community policing for the addictive drug trade and for criminal exploitation of vulnerable people.

I do think it is sensible to upgrade the current functioning of protective features of the legislation. It may be useful to look at brothel owners, vs houses run collectively by sex workers themselves. However, online sites have revolutionised how sex work is carried out to some extent. Updating this aspect of NZ sex work will be important also.

[lprent: sigh It would be helpful when making claims like “A quick search shows this is Family First political material.” that you showed what on or more of the phrase matches are. That is why you are in provisional moderation. In the absence of little details like that, what you have expressed is an unsubstantiated assertion of fact, and a possible smear on two other parties.

Repeating this deliberate mistake under any handle (I have my suspicions) tends to be dangerous for first time commenters. Read the policy about not wasting moderator time and understand I’m giving you a temporary benefit of the doubt. ]
- Jill Ovens 5.1
  
  4 February 2024 at 2:54 pm
  
  We are not related to Family First and our submission was prepared independently though the reference to the recent research did come from their source. I agree that the provisions of the Prostitution Reform Act regarding monitoring which allowed for inspectors to enter premises and to prosecute are inadequate and as we have said, a review of the Act is well overdue.
- weka 5.2
  
  4 February 2024 at 3:02 pm
  
  A quick search shows this is Family First political material. Family First is a NZ political organisation focused on Christian morals in our society. The authors of the report are retired engineer and UK migrant Pitt, and Johnson, a UK researcher who runs an organisation to transition exploited women out of prostitution.
  
  What is the connection between this post and Family First? You need to spell it out clearly.
  
  I was in a twitter Space earlier today, run by radical feminists, and this exact issue was discussed. How do feminists deal with the fact that on prostitution we share some broad, superficial agreement with conservatives? What happens when the fundamentalist right use this against radical feminist and liberal feminist positions? What happens when liberals like yourself use the shared broad position to undermine feminists?
  
  Thanks for providing links, but I think here you need to explain why you believe that the post is Family First material. Do you think WRP and Women's Declaration are not capable of coming up with these ideas themselves? Or that feminists are secretly religious conservatives?
  
  You appear to be conflating the two superficial positions and ignoring the important differences between feminist positions on prostitution and those of the religious right.
  
  I'm heading out shortly, because of your history on TS, I'm popping you into premod to make it easier to moderate while I'm on my phone.
  - SPC 5.2.1
    
    4 February 2024 at 3:16 pm
    
    The positions of religious conservatives and some feminists do converge, the "Nordic" strategy is based on opposition to prostitution – both taking away clients and helping women leave this work.
    
    In that, it is not just the British model of women operating outside an industry as independent sex workers.
    
    There is a similar strategy in opposition to pornography, expressed as opposition to the industry that exploits women and then opposition to the means by which women operate independently (such as on-line platforms).
- SPC 5.3
  
  4 February 2024 at 3:02 pm
  
  tWiggle has been around awhile.
  - lprent 5.3.1
    
    4 February 2024 at 3:59 pm
    
    Yeah I see. I didn’t look for handle matches. I was looking at IP sub-net matches which have matching issues but get quite indicative to my paranoid eye.
    
    What caught my eye of course was the lack of a pattern match to support the assertion of fact. I couldn’t find one myself (outside of the references) on a quick pass through. To make the assertion tWig(gle) needed to substantiate it otherwise it gets caught on my bullshit sensors. The fastest way is to just insert a google search link.
    
    The alternate way would be to do what any sane person would do here, and express it as an opinion of “it sounds like” or “it reads like”. No real reason for someone to risk being skewered on an assertion of fact issue here using a new handle unless they were just trying to break our bounds of expected behaviour.
Jill Ovens 6

4 February 2024 at 2:41 pm

There was no deliberate tactic to include unsubstantiated material or to smear others. I have referred the issue about the Greens position to the original author. We will remove the reference if it cannot be substantiated and we will advise Reem Alsalem. We are always open to challenge on factual grounds. Thanks for pointing this out.
- weka 6.1
  
  4 February 2024 at 2:48 pm
  
  thank-you Jill, much appreciated.
- lprent 6.2
  
  4 February 2024 at 2:59 pm
  
  Hi Jill. One of the problems with pulling material from other sites is that we don’t treat it as ‘our’ material. So we don’t amend the content outside of formatting and presentation issues. That is particularly the case for something that appears to have been a submission made to Parliament, and is therefore held as part of the official record.
  
  At best we either remove the content in its entirety (which in this case would leave the comments and reasons for its removal), or we write around the content as I did.
  
  This includes any amendments from the author. That was the base cause of my irritation and why it required a rapid and very irritated response to cover our arses. Otherwise it would have stayed up for longer and caused me and potentially the site even more issues.
  
  I very nearly just dumped it despite the comments already made on it. But despite my basic disagreement with the tenor, limited levels of substantiating data, and obvious levels of selection within the contents, I thought it was worth retaining as a topic of discussion despite that significiant flaw.
Jill Ovens 7

4 February 2024 at 2:46 pm

In the meantime, I am happy for that paragraph to be removed from the Standard post.
Jill Ovens 8

4 February 2024 at 5:06 pm

We have reviewed the evidence and can confirm that repeal of s19 of the Prostitution Reform Act, which effectively bans temporary Visa holders from working in the sex industry in New Zealand, is being called for and has been on the agenda ever since s19 was added to the proposed legislation.

In fact there was a petition to Parliament reported on Stuff, 17 April 2018 with the intro: "New Zealand must legalise sex work for migrants to prevent human trafficking, sex industry advocates say." Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Jackie Blue is one of several quoted in that article saying the legislation should be amended to include migrants.

Of many Stuff articles on the subject of repeal of s19, Ricardo Menendez March, Green Party Immigration spokesperson, is quoted by Mildred Armah, Stuff, 7 August 2023, as saying the legislation is completely "dehumanising" and that "Politicians are too scared to do what is right for a community that has traditionally been scapegoated by people in power."

Nevertheless, we have decided to revise our statement, citing the latest Stuff article to the following:

There has been pressure in New Zealand to repeal s19 of the Prostitution Reform Act which bans temporary Visa holders from working in the sex industry.[1] We strongly oppose repeal of the provision, which would amount to the encouragement of international trafficking.

[1] Sex workers 'afraid' of reporting abuse, fearing deportation | Stuff

[link added for first quote: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/103129627/no-trafficking-in-nz-sex-industry-but-migrant-abuse-is-widespread-report-finds%5D
- weka 8.1
  
  4 February 2024 at 6:52 pm
  
  Thanks Jill.
  
  It's a real shame that we can't have a public conversation about how to do right by migrant women in NZ as well as prevent trafficking.
- lprent 8.2
  
  5 February 2024 at 12:20 am
  
  Green Party immigration spokesperson, and candidate for Mt Albert, Ricardo Menéndez March, called the legislation “completely dehumanising” and said it was a matter of political will.
  
  Which was a statement of Ricardo's opinion and a statement of the long held opinion of the Greens. They and many MPs from other parties said that s19 is and would be a problem because it was essentially unenforceable. I heard Labour MPs and members at the times also said that it would be a problem.
  
  The 2005 lit review on pre-PRA that was delivered in 2005 to the Ministry of Justice effectively pointed out the pre-existing exploitative problem prior to 2003 in pp47-49 and the reluctance to engage with police or immigration and why. pp75-76 give an overview that offers a interesting perspective including this sex worker as she argued to the select committee.
  
  I want to be a sex worker, I don’t want to be a criminal, and I don’t deserve to be. I work in a demand driven industry. Without clients there would be no workers. We are not predators. I sit in a secured building and clients choose to come and see me. When you are thinking about the industry, it’s not something ‘over there’, to do with a whole sector of society cut off from everyone else. What we are talking about is my life, and the lives of a whole lot of women and men in this society. It’s often hard enough dealing with the social stigma of being a sex worker, please don’t leave us to be criminals any longer. I’m not asking any of you to condone sex work, or believe that what I do is OK, I’m just asking for the full human rights that this Bill would give us. (PRB 107A, 2001, 6)
  
  From what I know, and what I see in the various documents that I have been looking at today, I'd say that many of the issues with the pre-PRA have diminished or gone. The s19 has caused one area to persist primarily with a reluctance to contact or use the police.
  
  Note that s19 wasn't in the original bill (see report from select committee). The migration issue was strongly raised by the police report attached.
  
  S19 was added during the committee phase
  
  Section 19 of the Act provides that while in New Zealand on a temporary entry class visa, a person may not provide commercial sexual services; or operate or invest in a business of prostitution. Doing so may make a person liable for deportation under the Immigration Act 2009. Section 19 was added by the then Minister of Immigration during the Committee of the Whole House stage of the Bill’s legislative process, as there was concern that decriminalisation could be exploited by overseas traffickers to bring people into the country to work in the sex industry
  
  That s19 would cause problems and has caused problems has been obvious since the bill was first introduced. If you are just catching up on the pressure to change it, then you are about 20 years too late. It has been used as a cover for what are effectively trafficking operations, effectively do what bad actors in the sex industry worker industry want, or they will sic immigration on to you. Exactly as the police described in the pre-PRA days.
  
  However I can't see any good way to not have s19 because the trafficking legislation in the Crimes Act is like a blunt axe. It only works on a large slow-moving target. It can't slow growth from people who are more vulnerable than our own citizens.
  
  Removing s19 (as the Greens would prefer) won't work either. .
  
  It is a issue of work
  
  The Committee also stated that repealing section 19 of the Act would have many implications for the immigration system that would need to be fully worked through. The Committee notes the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s submission that repealing section 19 would only make sex work legal, in the first instance, for people who hold open work visas and that it is unclear whether the Government would grant Accredited Employer Work Visas for commercial sexual services.
  
  You need a work visa to work in NZ. But work visas are often hard to get or have conditions that are hard to do when working as a sex worker. That is because they are targeted to particular skills or limited in size. It sounds like most of the people arriving to be a sex worker come in on tourist visas – which have no right to work.
  
  That is because we have a lot of tourists (about 3.89 million visitor arrivals in 2019) and limit the number of people allowed to work. In 2019 it peaked at 0.243 million.
  
  To add people who can work in a commercial sex industry, we'd have to either increase the number of people on work visas or immigration – or reduce to add the number of builders, pickers, tourism hospitality workers, computer programmers etc etc for a new category. That is a hard sell.
  
  It is also not that likely to reduce the number of people coming in to do sex work on tourist visas – which would still result in deportation if caught.
  
  //——-
  
  BTW: reading the advocates of the Nordic model in Hansard back in 2003 tonight was a distressing experience. The nays procrastination of doom if the police weren't going to run the sex worker industry seem quaint now, just like Peter Brown's predictions that were archaic in the day and now just seem to me to be the misogynist ravings of a madman. The other side seems like they were floating a wind to the future.
  
  The only person who really captured the future was Sue Bradford who said in the second reading
  
  I fundamentally question the right of the State in this day and age to interfere with the rights of people 18 years and over to have consensual sex with each other. There is no way that sex workers—mainly women—should continue to be open to harassment and prosecution for a victimless crime. Nor should we turn to the Swedish model, which prosecutes the men who pay for sex. The Swedish experience shows that all that does is drive prostitution underground. In the UK, laws criminalising the client have been tried for 17 years and there is no sign whatsoever that prostitution is dying out, even though that is the main rationale for that type of law. While on the select committee, we heard evidence from a sex worker in Sweden who talked about the much greater physical dangers she and others now face as a result of the law change there. She reported that some of the worst consequences of the Swedish law have been that there is a lot more underage teenage prostitution, that the mafia bosses have more control, and that workers are too scared to get police help, even when friends are murdered, because if it gets out that they have called the cops, they lose all their customers. I would like to ask those feminists and Christians in the House who are so fond of the Swedish model whether they really think it preferable that we should impose greater criminalisation on the industry, with all that that entails, rather than remove sanctions and create the protections that come when prostitutes feel able to call police and other services for help when they need it, without fear of persecution or of loss of trade.
  
  There is a feminist strand of thought that opposes this bill. This seems to come from a perspective that says that because prostitution is fundamentally an unpleasant, yucky kind of thing for most people even to think about, and because some sex workers have had abuse in their earlier lives, somehow that means that all prostitutes should continue to be criminalised for their profession. As a lifelong feminist myself, I acknowledge the desire behind that line of thought to bring an end to something that its proponents see as degrading and exploitative, but I come from another strand of feminist thinking that believes that it is our job to do everything we can to make life better for all women, even those who are in this most vulnerable of occupations. Unless we truly believe that prostitution is going to disappear altogether and soon, I believe that the best we can do as feminists is to maximise the conditions that will help to end the worst excesses of violence, coercion and exploitation, rather than allow prostitution to continue as a subset of the criminal world.
  
  Rape, physical assault, theft of wages, the threat of murder, and other extreme forms of violence and exploitation are what many New Zealand prostitutes live with right now. In dealing with this bill we are not talking about some kind of abstract theory, but about the reality of people’s lives. It is no use waiting for some utopian future to come true. I would much rather do everything I can, right now, to help protect and empower those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to make prostitution their occupation.
  
  The Nordic model that was repeatably raised in Hansard debates by members in 2003 simply doesn't work as its proponents thought it would. If introduced in NZ it would have been extremely unlikely to slow either customer demand or sex workers to provide services. In my opinion, it is a dumb prohibition without an ability to block demand from both providers and clients. It'd just push it underground and in all likelihood simply increase various kinds of debt slavery and trafficking.
  
  The Nordic model has been tried in many states now, with variations, and shows no sign of any promise of viability.
  
  Which is exactly what Sue Bradford said.
  
  To bed….
Tabletennis 9

5 February 2024 at 10:56 am

If the GP and/or others like to make it poss for women/men (non residents/citizens) to work in the sex industry on a tourist/student-visa.
Than surely any person coming into the country on a non-working visa should also be able to do the same and work if they find it.

IOW we can do away with work-visa application, because there is no longer a difference between the two categories…
- Descendant Of Smith 9.1
  
  5 February 2024 at 11:24 am
  
  Maybe you should read the post responses before commenting.
  
  It's about decriminalising those who are here already so they can report exploitation with less fear.
  - Tabletennis 9.1.1
    
    5 February 2024 at 11:39 am
    
    mmhh, yes it is a discussion about decriminalising those that are on a tourist/student visa. In other words giving them the right to work.
    
    So no longer will there be a difference between those that apply for a work-visa and those on any other kind of visa.
    - Craig H 9.1.1.1
      
      5 February 2024 at 4:08 pm
      
      I don't think anyone is suggesting work should be legal on a general visitor visa, sex work or otherwise, just that sex work shouldn't automatically be banned for those on temporary visas. The temporary visa categories would still have to have the issue worked through.
      - Tabletennis 9.1.1.1.1
        
        5 February 2024 at 5:00 pm
        
        Ok, lets see "sex shouldn't be automatically banned for those on a temporary Visa"
        How about replacing -sex work – with: temporary IT/ project /cleaning/farming,etc on a non work- visa – should also not be banned?
        
        NZ Temporary visa are: Student, Tourist or Work.
        
        If you would allow work on a non-work visa, then what is the difference between somebody going through the right channels and apply for a work visa (even a temp one) and somebody working on a non-working visa – and not automatically be banned for doing so.. (after being caught by authorities?)
        
        Either you apply for a work permit (if need be after arrival) and adhere to the rules of the country.
        
        Descendant Of Smith 9.1.1.1.1.1
        
        5 February 2024 at 5:31 pm
        
        Stop mis-characterising what is being suggested. Unsure what your motive is in continually doing so.
        
        Currently under existing conditions women are coming here and engaging in prostitution and being exploited. In doing so they are both in breach of their visa and illegal.
        
        While migrants in occupations other than sex work are also deported for breach of their visa conditions, sex work is the only occupation prohibited in law, making it specifically illegal for migrants to work in the sex industry in New Zealand, and thus making them liable for deportation solely on the basis of their involvement in sex work. No other occupation is targeted in this way, even where considerable exploitation is documented.
        
        All that is being asked that it not specifically be made illegal to encourage them to come forward and complain. That does not mean that approval be given for sex workers to come here and work and immigration have quite rightly pointed out that it would still be highly unlikely to give approval for sex workers to come here to work as they effectively are self employed and self-employment doesn't not qualify for work visas.
        
        weka …
        
        6 February 2024 at 3:37 pm
        
        All that is being asked that it not specifically be made illegal to encourage them to come forward and complain. That does not mean that approval be given for sex workers to come here and work and immigration have quite rightly pointed out that it would still be highly unlikely to give approval for sex workers to come here to work as they effectively are self employed and self-employment doesn't not qualify for work visas.
        
        Can you please explain this a bit more? Repealing s.19 would allow sex workers to apply for visas. If they were to be turned down because that would make them self-employed, what is to stop them working for an employer doing sex work?
        
        And what is to stop sex workers coming in on a working holiday visa and doing sex work once they are here?
        
        weka …
        
        6 February 2024 at 3:44 pm
        
        section 19 of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003
        
        https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0028/latest/DLM197871.html
        
        Descendant Of Smith …
        
        6 February 2024 at 7:47 pm
        
        Immigration simply would not approve them just like they do not approve many others for other occupations. It isn't compulsory for applications to be approved and I can't ever imagine any government allowing a policy that would allow sex workers to be granted permits to come to New Zealand to work.
        
        The question to ask is why is sex work singled out and made specific in the legislation as illegal and is that really needed?
        
        And what is to stop sex workers coming in on a working holiday visa and doing sex work once they are here?
        
        This is what is happening now or a student visa or a tourist visa and so on. Not having specific permission to come in and do sex work isn't preventing it occurring.
        
        There is also some evidence that it may be harmful and increase the risk of exploitation.
        
        “She also believed migrant sex workers were specifically preyed upon due to their vulnerable status.
        
        “Rapists are not exclusively stupid, rapists are aware of the law, so they explicitly target migratory workers.””
        
        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/lives-can-be-overturned-is-deporting-migrant-sex-workers-causing-more-harm-than-good/ZO3HUHQAGCIACDUXC4UR7QN7UI/
        
        I think people are really arguing thin end of the wedge fallacy.
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
        
        Descendant Of Smith …
        
        6 February 2024 at 8:06 pm
        
        Some more background
        
        http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZPubIntLawJl/2021/2.html
        
        Craig H 9.1.1.1.1.2
        
        6 February 2024 at 1:47 pm
        
        While work visas are the main way to give temporary visas allowing people the ability to work in NZ, there are other visas granted with conditions allowing work.
        
        Student visas commonly allow 20 hours/week of work during term time and full time work during holidays for tertiary students studying a course which meets the criteria (mostly two years full-time study, or Masters or PhD) and secondary students aged 16+ (I am aware that workers have to be 18 to be sex workers, but there are migrant secondary students who are 18 so would meet that criteria).
        
        Guardians of students aged under 18 can be granted work conditions on their visitor visa to work between 9:30am-2:30pm.
        
        Visas granted under the RSE scheme are limited visas, not work visas (not that this category is likely to be an issue).
Former 10

5 February 2024 at 3:26 pm

Is The Standard now a pro-TERF site? This is posted as Notices and Features. How many statements other minnow parties with no discernible electoral support are going to be posted here?

[you don’t say what you mean by ‘pro-TERF’, so it’s hard to answer. If you mean do we publish content from gender critical feminists, then yes we do. Read the About so you know what The Standard is and does. We write, cross post and have Guest Posts covering a range of political issues broadly aligned with the labour movement.

If instead you meant to use the term terf as a pejorative, then I will moderate. Read the site Policy about language and tone that has the effect of excluding others. Terf is a term used by gender identity and men’s rights activists in some of the worst online abuse directed at women, including sexual assault/violent rhetoric. This also spills over into real life for some women See https://terfisaslur.com/

We encourage robust debate here, but it’s not a free for all. We moderate to allow gender critical and trans support comments both.

Your antipathy towards platforming feminists and emerging progressive political parties is noted, however in order to comment here you need to share your thinking. Simply posting slurs is inadequate. Read the Policy. – weka]
- Anker 10.1
  
  12 February 2024 at 6:47 pm
  
  Thanks Lynn for pointing that out to Former.
Tabletennis 11

5 February 2024 at 6:15 pm

"making it specifically illegal for migrants to work in the sex industry in New Zealand, "as as they effectively are self employed and self-employment doesn't not qualify for work visas."
Ah ok, first time I see this added info.

"No other occupation is targeted in this way,"
this mean: illegal workers are not deported when found out? I don't think so

It is not "illegal" to complain, but what one is asking at the same time for the authorities to not pass it on to immigration.