Street-Based Sex Workers
8.2 The Nature of Street-Based Sex Work
8.3 Reasons for Working on the Streets
8.3.1 A Matter of Choice or Circumstance
8.3.2 Demographic Factors
8.4 Impact of the PRA on Street-Based Sex Workers
8.5.1 The ‘Problem’ of Street Work for Sex Workers
8.5.2 Christchurch Murders
8.5.3 Drugs and Alcohol
8.5.4 Access to Health Services
8.5.5 Social Marginalisation
8.6 Objections to Street-Based Sex Work
8.6.1 Social Nuisance
8.6.2 Means Available to Deal with Social Nuisance
8.7.1 Local Government Initiatives
8.8.1 British Approaches: Targeting Kerb-Crawlers and Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
8.8.2 The Swedish Model: Prohibition of Purchase
8.8.3 Safe-House Brothels in Sydney
8.8.4 Dutch Tolerance Zones
8.9 Support Strategies
8.10 Why Legislation is Not the Answer
8.11 PLRC Position on Street-Based Sex Work
8.11.1 Street Workers Should be Supported to Work Safely and with Consideration for Local Communities
8.11.2 Street Workers Should be Encouraged to Stop Working on the Streets
8.11.3 Legislative Approaches to Problems Associated with Street-Based Sex Work Should be Avoided
8.11.4 Local Government Should Adopt Practical Solutions
8.1 Introduction
The PRA is intended to provide protections for all sex workers, irrespective of the sector of the industry in which they work. In terms of the purpose of the PRA, street-based sex workers have much to gain. Under the previous criminalised regime, street workers were more likely to be arrested for soliciting than indoor workers. Street workers are both more vulnerable to violence and more likely to experience pressure to use unsafe sex practices than other sex workers. Street-based sex work is also the most visible part of the sex industry, attracting sometimes strong reactions from some communities. Although not specifically tasked to do so, the Committee believes it is important to separately consider the operation of the PRA in terms of its impact on street-based sex workers.
At the time of the law reform the hope was expressed that decriminalising brothel keeping would encourage street-based sex workers to work indoors. The CSOM study investigated the degree of movement between sectors of the sex industry. The CSOM study found that, even post decriminalisation, there is little movement between the street and indoor managed sectors of the industry. There are multiple reasons for working from the street. The Committee acknowledges that working on the streets is a choice some sex workers make, even when alternative venues are available.
8.1.2 Historical Perspective
Street-based sex work is not a new phenomenon, nor are public and political concerns about street working a recent development. The earliest New Zealand legislation to address prostitution was the Vagrancy Act 1866. This legislation was based on the English Vagrancy Act 1824 ‘which could be invoked against a prostitute wandering the public street or in any place of public resort and behaving in a riotous or indecent manner’ (Jordan, 2005). The 1866 Act was repealed by the Police Offences Act 1884, which prohibited ‘common prostitutes’ propositioning passers-by.
In 1869, the Contagious Diseases Act allowed any woman suspected of being a ‘common prostitute’ to be detained and subject to forcible medical examination. No such action was taken against the woman’s clients. This uneven approach to prostitution, which penalised the workers but ignored the clients, continued (although in less extreme forms) under subsequent New Zealand legislation.[50]
Under section 26 of the Summary Offences Act 1981, a person was liable to a fine not exceeding $200 for soliciting in a public place. Case law established that massage parlours were public places; therefore, both indoor and street-based sex workers were liable to prosecution under the Summary Offences Act 1981.
Street-based prostitution was a feature of urban life in many centres during the nineteenth century. For several decades however, street-based sex workers have only been seen in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. During the 1990s, street prostitution areas developed in Manukau City (Manukau City Council, 2006).
8.2 The Nature of Street-Based Sex Work
8.2.1 Numbers
Any estimate of the size of any sector of the sex industry must be viewed with caution due to the often temporary and sporadic nature of people’s involvement. In addition, street-based workers who are with a client, or not working, while head counts are conducted may not be included, making accurate assessment of numbers of workers difficult.
In the Committee’s first report, the number of sex workers in New Zealand was estimated to be 5,932 of which 11% (roughly 652) were street-based. Although the data collection methods had many limitations, this represented the best estimate of numbers immediately prior to decriminalisation (PLRC, 2005). Two further counts of street-based sex workers were undertaken in 2006 and 2007 by researchers from the CSOM. Difficulty arises when trying to compare data collected in relation to illegal activity (soliciting) and data collected when such offences no longer exist.
In 2006 (and again in 2007) in Wellington and Christchurch sex workers known to be currently working, but not observed on the nights counting took place, were included in the final estimates. Some of the sex workers included were very rarely seen on the street. Wellington and Christchurch adapted the method suggested by the CSOM to include known sex workers. The same method was not employed in Auckland; therefore the 2006 figures must be treated as an under-estimation of the number of street-based workers in this region.
Research undertaken by the CSOM in February and March 2006 found 253 street-based sex workers in New Zealand, representing 11% of the sex industry as a whole. In Auckland 106[51] street workers were counted, (making up 7% of the industry in Auckland) in Wellington 47 street workers were counted (representing 13% of the Wellington sex industry) and in Christchurch 100 were recorded (representing 26% of sex workers in Christchurch). The CSOM found no street-based workers in the other two centres included in the research (Hawke’s Bay and Nelson).
Between June and October 2007, CSOM carried out another estimation of street-based sex workers in the five centres. Again, none were found to be working in the Hawke’s Bay or Nelson regions. For this estimate, outreach workers in Auckland developed a list of street workers known to be working, similar to the lists used in Wellington and Christchurch, to estimate the numbers of street-based workers. In Christchurch 121 street-based workers were counted and in Wellington 44 street-based sex workers were counted. In Auckland, 230 street workers were known to be working. Not all workers on the lists are seen on the streets every week. For example, in Christchurch, during a two week period of observation in June 2007, between 70 and 77 workers were noted as working (CSOM, 2007).
The different methods used to estimate numbers of sex workers in Auckland in 2006 and 2007 may explain the large increase in the Auckland figures. However, Auckland outreach workers also reported an ‘influx of sex workers on the streets in the six to eight months prior to June 2007’. Of the 230 workers, 20 were very rarely seen on the street (CSOM, 2007).
Streetreach is a non-governmental organisation that provides support for street-based sex workers in Auckland and Manukau cities. Streetreach believes there has been an overall increase in the number of street-based sex workers in the Auckland region since decriminalisation (Streetreach, 2007)
In Christchurch, some residents in and around the street prostitution area report an increase in the number of sex workers since the passage of the PRA (St Lukes Body Corporate, 2007). Information received from other residents from the same area indicates that sex workers are now seen working during daylight hours, as well as at night (Residents of Manchester, Peterborough and Salisbury Street corners, 2007). NZPC outreach workers in Christchurch confirm some sex workers now prefer to work during the day because it is safer. NZPC and YCD in Christchurch considered that the number of street-based workers has remained stable since the enactment of the PRA. However, there are slight seasonal variations with more sex workers presenting on the streets as the weather improves (PLRC, 2006).
The Salvation Army operates street vans and community services for street-based sex workers in Auckland, Manukau and Christchurch cities. The Salvation Army noted that the PRA has not reduced the number of people working on the street. The Salvation Army argues the number of sex workers on the streets has not reduced because the PRA has not improved or addressed the causal factors underlying prostitution (Salvation Army, 2007).
Comment
The Committee acknowledges that opinions differ about the effect of decriminalisation on the number of sex workers. The perception that there has been an increase in the number of street-based sex workers since the enactment of the PRA may be due to sex workers working more visibly in some areas. This does not necessarily represent greater numbers overall. The Committee endorses the findings of the CSOM study that ‘the numbers of street-based sex workers have remained stable since the enactment of the PRA, with comparable numbers on the streets to estimates done prior to decriminalisation’.
8.3 Reasons for Working on the Streets
Street workers are a heterogeneous population, with multiple reasons for working from the street. The popular perception that street-based sex workers are all drug dependant ‘lost souls’ denies them their individuality and agency. It is true that some street workers have drug and alcohol dependencies and lives that are in a state of crisis. However, there are other sex workers who choose to work from the streets for reasons other than desperation or a lack of alternatives.
The literature review undertaken by CJRC identified a combination of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors influencing people’s entry into sex work in general. Push factors include abuse, family dysfunction and breakdown in care giving, exclusion from school, homelessness and a lack of money. ‘Pull factors’ include perceptions of excitement and glamour, encouragement from others, flexible work hours and significantly more money than other jobs available to the worker (CJRC, 2007).
8.3.1 A Matter of Choice or Circumstance
The Salvation Army identifies the main reasons for involvement in prostitution (street or otherwise) as poverty and social disadvantage, including unemployment, homelessness, drug and alcohol misuse, and a history of family dysfunction and/or sexual abuse. It also cites the pressure exerted by those who rely on the sex workers’ earnings, whether they are a ‘pimp’, or the worker’s own dependent child. The Salvation Army rejects the suggestion that a person would freely choose sex work (Salvation Army, 2007).
The CSOM study found that, for street workers, the main reason for starting sex work was financial, but this was by no means the only reason. Some sex workers choose to work on the streets because they can charge more for their services and retain more of their earnings than brothel-based workers. Sex workers who are street-based can set their own hours, and work only when and if they need to.
I’d just, if I remember correctly, it was like coming up towards Christmas and I lost my job. And I’d just been and got a personal loan for a car and blah-de-blah-de-blah, and it was just, yeah, right on Christmas, and yeah, it just, I needed a lot of money fast and this was the only way to do it. Simple.
(Maureen, Street, Female, Auckland, CSOM, 2007)
Street-based workers have independence in the same way that private workers do, but also receive the type of social contact and peer support available in a brothel environment. The CSOM study found that street-based sex workers reported that ‘all of their friends were in the industry’ as one reason for continuing to work in the sex industry.
Um I think it’s the um independence. Like you know your ability – well I’m talking from a street perspective – it’s your ability to choose. I mean you don’t have to hop in a car with a guy. You don’t have to do a job. You can tell him to piss off you know. Um it’s the um adventure, I suppose, the excitement of not knowing what’s going to happen that night. It’s a bit of that. Um there’s the money, which um can be good…I mean you work how long you want to work. I mean you can go out do a job, pop around to the bar, have a dance, you know, um go and see someone, have a chat and go back to work or something, you know. I mean it’s just lots of freedom, yeah.
(Dora, Street, Transgender, Auckland, CSOM, 2007)
The CSOM study also found that street workers report they thought sex workers ‘looked like they were fun to be with’ and that ‘the work looked exciting and glamorous’ as reasons for entry into the industry. This was particularly true for male and transgender sex workers who also reported the influence of friends, and exploring their sexuality, as other reasons for starting working. The CSOM study also found that 50.8% of street-based workers reported they enjoyed the sex as a reason for continuing to work in the sex industry.
The CJRC literature review (2007) identified the economic advantage of sex work to be a significant reason for staying in the industry. The review states ‘the conclusion drawn is that sex work can be seen as a positive choice for some sex workers, preferable to other alternatives and offering a conduit to social mobility, such as home ownership’.
The flexible hours of street-based sex work may be attractive to people whose lives are in a state of chaos and who find it difficult to cope with regular working hours. CSOM found that 45.1% of street-based workers cited support for drug or alcohol use as a reason for staying in the sex industry, as opposed to just 10.7% of managed and 13.5% of private workers.
8.3.2 Demographic Factors
The CSOM study found that street-based sex workers are more likely than other sex workers to be Māori or Pasifika. Sex workers who are transgender are more likely to work on the streets. Street-based workers are also more likely than sex workers in other sectors to have started sex work under the age of 16 years. They are less likely to be in any other paid employment, to have attained a tertiary education or to be currently studying. The socio-economic and background characteristics of street-based workers tend to be less advantaged than others in the sex industry.
The CSOM study also found that street-based workers were significantly more likely than other workers to report not knowing what else to do (other than sex work), not knowing how to leave the industry, and not knowing who to ask for help to leave.
While the majority of street workers are female, a significant proportion are transgender. The CSOM interviews found that, for transgender people, the camaraderie and support offered by other sex workers was a significant reason to remain working. Sex work also provided some transgender people with validation of their gender. Transgender people find it almost impossible to be employed in the brothel sector and report fewer employment alternatives to sex work. The Human Rights Commission’s Inquiry into Discrimination Experienced by Transgender People (2008) notes that ‘the career options of some trans people are limited by discrimination.’ Submitters to the Inquiry also noted that stereotypes about transgender peoples’ engagement in sex work can also be a barrier to their obtaining other employment.
Comment
For people whose employment options may be limited, sex work, and particularly street-based sex work, can offer a quick means of achieving financial gains beyond what they would otherwise be able to achieve in the ‘straight’ workforce. Sex work does not require education or qualifications or references. Street-based sex work is an industry in which workers are ‘hired’ on the basis of their personal marketing skills and availability alone.
8.4 Impact of the PRA on Street-Based Sex Workers
Decriminalisation has meant that sex workers and their clients no longer have to be as clandestine about their activities. This means negotiations can take place at a less hurried pace, and may be within sight of other workers and members of the public.[52] The Committee was told that street-based workers are now seen during daylight hours as well as after dark, that they work in better lit areas, and are more ‘up-front’ about working.
Street-based sex workers reported that it is now easier to refuse a client – 61.9% of street-based workers in the CSOM study reported that it was now easier to refuse to ‘do’ a client since the law reform (CSOM, 2007).
8.4.1 Role of Police
The Committee received information from several sources indicating improved relations with Police since the law reform. Participants in the CJRC key informant interviews believed the PRA has changed the role of Police from prosecutors, to protectors. The transition is most apparent in Christchurch; with work still needing to be done by Police in other regions. NZPC and YCD (Youth Cultural Development) praised Christchurch Police for their efforts to make contact with the city’s street-based workers, particularly after the murders of two street-based workers in 2005.
Christchurch Police consider the PRA has made co-operation, and the good relations between street-based workers and frontline officers, possible. Street-based workers offer Police useful information about activity on the streets, while Police provide information about potential offenders who may pose a risk to street workers (PLRC, 2006).
Street-based participants in the CSOM survey were more likely to report getting information about bad clients from Police (26.2%) than either managed (6.8%), or private indoor workers (9.4%). Few of the sex workers who CSOM interviewed, regardless of the sector they worked in, said they had reported any of the incidents of violence or crimes against them to the Police. Street-based workers were generally less likely to do so than either managed or private indoor workers. Participants in the CJRC key informant interviews cited the reaction of some officers as a barrier to reporting offences committed against sex workers; although there was also a sense that reports of violence against sex workers would now be taken seriously. Christchurch Police also acknowledge some sex workers may still be reluctant to lay complaints, making it difficult to prosecute offenders (PLRC, 2006).
Comment
The Committee recognises that a key function of the Police is the apprehension of offenders. Liaison with the sex industry must be considered in the context of other Police priorities, with the allocation of resources to investigating serious offences taking precedence. In Christchurch, the murders of two street-based sex workers in 2005 provided a reason for Police to work more closely with street-based sex workers. The Committee commends Christchurch Police for maintaining links forged at that time. Street workers are exposed to a higher level of risk than sex workers in other sectors of the industry. Police can play a part in reducing their vulnerability by building relationships of trust between frontline officers, street workers and their advocates. The necessary attitudinal shift, from prosecution to protection, is not universal and may still be dependent on individual officers. Such changes take time and need the commitment from senior Police to become entrenched. As demonstrated in Christchurch, closer ties with street-based sex workers and their advocates can be advantageous to all parties.
8.5 Is There a Problem?
8.5.1 The ‘Problem’ of Street Work for Sex Workers
The CSOM study found that street-based sex workers are significantly more likely than other sex workers to have experienced violence, threats of violence, to have been raped, had money stolen from them or been held somewhere against their will. Clients are the usual perpetrators of offences against street-based workers.
The CSOM study found that street workers were more likely than other workers to report refusing a client in the last 12 months. This may reflect the autonomy of street-based workers, but may also be indicative of the type of clients who prefer street-based to brothel-based prostitution. The CSOM study also found that street-based sex workers reported receiving requests for sex without a condom more often than workers in other sectors of the industry.
8.5.2 Christchurch Murders
Two Christchurch street-based sex workers were murdered in separate incidents in 2005. In both cases, the offenders were found and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment (one with preventive detention).
Suzie Sutherland was murdered on 16 April 2005. A year later, one of Suzie’s clients on the night of her death, Jule Patrick Burns, was found guilty of her murder. Burns’s defence argued the nature of Suzie’s occupation was inherently dangerous, and therefore she (and other street-based sex workers) should not be considered a particularly vulnerable group; the implication being they had chosen their occupation regardless of the risks. Justice Hansen rejected this argument.
The second murder was of a 24 year old woman, whose body was found in the Avon River in December.[53] Peter Waihape, one of her clients on the night of her death, was convicted of her murder.
In determining whether the particular vulnerability of the victim warranted the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years or more[54], Justice Chisholm cited the decision of Justice Hansen in the Burns case. Justice Chisholm noted that, ‘He [Justice Hansen] accepted that the nature of the occupation of a prostitute working at night makes a prostitute specially vulnerable and could see no reason why prostitutes should not receive the same protection as other people in vulnerable positions’ (R v Peter Steven Waihape (High Court, Christchurch, 17 August 2006) at [21]).
8.5.3 Drugs and Alcohol
The CSOM study found that street workers are more likely than other workers to accept payment in the form of drugs for the provision of sexual services. However, there are regional and demographic variations: 71.8% of Auckland street workers interviewed said they would accept drugs instead of money, compared with 45.3% of street workers in Wellington and only 37% of Christchurch street workers. Male and transgender street workers were also more likely to exchange sex for drugs and alcohol than female workers.
8.5.4 Access to Health Services
The CSOM study found that street-based workers were more likely to have contact with a mental health practitioner, counsellor or social worker than other sex workers; but they were less likely to have contact with health professionals or have their own doctor.
Although it was hoped decriminalisation would make it easier for sex workers to access health services, the CSOM study found that there were no significant differences in access to health services between Christchurch participants in 1999 and 2006. It should be noted, however, that very few participants in the CSOM survey (3.7%), and none of the participants in the qualitative interviews reported not going for sexual health check ups. The majority of those surveyed who did not have check ups were street-based workers.
8.5.5 Social Marginalisation
Street-based sex workers are the most at risk sex workers, but are also vulnerable members of society for reasons other than their involvement in sex work. In the CSOM study, street workers were significantly more likely to report accepting food or a place to stay in lieu of money for sex work, indicating higher levels of poverty and homelessness amongst street workers than other sex workers.
8.6 Objections to Street-Based Sex Work
Community concerns are generally only reported in relation to the Christchurch and Manukau street prostitution areas. The Wellington and central Auckland areas may be more generally tolerated because they are long established and geographically stable. Also, central Auckland and Wellington apartment dwellers have moved in knowing the character of the area, including the presence of street-based prostitution. While Wellington’s main street-based area is close to several bars, it does not attract much foot traffic from surrounding bars and clubs, and is removed from the main nightlife area of Courtenay Place.
This is in contrast to Christchurch and Manukau where street prostitution scenes have developed or shifted into traditionally residential areas. Christchurch has seen the gradual movement of street-based workers into more residential areas in response to pressure from bars and brothels at the city end of the relevant streets. Some people leaving the bars in Christchurch walk through the section of the street used by sex workers and their clients in order to get home. The Manukau sites developed in the early 1990s.
Another difference is the age of the street-based workers in each area. Research by CSOM found that street-based workers in Christchurch tended to be younger (and report starting in the sex industry younger) than in other areas. Manukau City has a high proportion of young people, with 41% of the city’s population under the age of 24 (Manukau City Council, 2007).[55] Thus there are more likely to be young people on the streets of Manukau, only a small minority of whom will be involved in prostitution.
8.6.1 Social Nuisance
The Committee received information from residents of the Christchurch area used by street-based sex workers indicating that it is not the sex workers per se that are the cause of the disruptive behaviour witnessed. Often, it is the negative attention from members of the public, some of whom drive by specifically to shout at and harass the workers standing on the street that is the focus of complaints by residents and other members of the community (St Lukes Close Body Corporate, 2007). Residents and NZPC outreach workers also report ‘hoons’ throwing eggs at sex workers. In addition, where street workers come into direct contact with late night bar patrons there is often conflict. Abuse and harassment of street-based sex workers by drunken members of the public is common.
Submitters to the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill tended to make generalised statements about the ‘negative image’ of street prostitution, rather than specific complaints about the behaviour of the sex workers (Manukau City Council, 2007). However, there are reports of some street-based sex workers propositioning members of the public, and being aggressive, disruptive and noisy.
The issues in Manakau City are not limited to prostitution. The Committee heard from Police that family violence and issues stemming from abuse of alcohol are major problems in the area, as well as other impacts of urban decay and lack of investment.
Objections levelled at street-based prostitution often focus on offensive litter purportedly left by the sex workers. A common complaint is that used condoms, excrement and other bodily waste is left in the street, in shop doorways and car parks, or on private property. Police in Manukau and Christchurch told the Committee that the local liquor licensing arrangements and alcohol consumption are significant contributors to offensive litter.
8.6.2 Means Available to Deal with Social Nuisance
Several legislative means exist to deal with social nuisance. The Summary Offences Act 1981 contains provisions prohibiting disorderly and offensive behaviour, including intimidation and obstructing public streets.[56] Under the Litter Act 1979, fines can be imposed of up to $7,500 for persons depositing potentially dangerous or infectious materials, which could include used condoms. Also, as discussed in chapter nine, territorial authorities have bylaw making powers enabling the regulation of ‘trading in public places’.
NZPC outreach workers report encouraging street workers to use the available rubbish bins as well as collecting and disposing of used condoms themselves. Other litter such as bottles and fast food wrappers cannot be exclusively connected to street-based sex workers or their clients. A clean and well maintained environment may encourage appropriate disposal of litter.
In its report on the Manukau Bill, the Local Government and Environment Committee (Local Government and Environment Committee) (2006) noted;
It is our belief, and this view is endorsed by various submitters, that the behaviour of sex workers on the streets is generally regulated more effectively by their peers and outreach groups working with them than by legislation. We believe that it is important for nongovernmental organisations doing this work to be adequately funded and subject to proper accountability to produce the best results. We hope that if sex workers respect the areas where they conduct street work, then residents will be more tolerant of their presence.
8.7 Options
8.7.1 Local Government Initiatives
Some territorial authorities have introduced bylaws containing prohibitions on soliciting in, or within view of, a public place.[57] These prohibitions may be contrary to the intent of the PRA but have not yet been tested in court. Information provided by these councils indicates that bylaws have often been enacted more as a pre-emptive measure than in relation to specific or ongoing complaints. Of the four bylaws that prohibit public or street-based soliciting, all have been enacted in areas with no history of street-based sex work.
In 2001, Wellington City Council initiated a street ambassadors scheme called ‘Walk Wise’. The Council-funded programme is contracted to a private security company. Fifteen full-time equivalent Walk Wise officers patrol the city’s streets on an almost 24 hour basis. Although they are described as eyes and ears on the streets, Walk Wise do not have an enforcement role. Rather, their job is to build relationships in the community. They have made strong links with NZPC, Police and social agencies in the city as well as local sex workers, homeless and other street-based people.
Christchurch City Council provides funding for the Street Youth Work Project run by YCD. The project works with young people on the streets of Christchurch, particularly those under the age of 18, who are working as sex workers or are at risk of involvement in sex work. The project is run in conjunction with NZPC, and has the support of Christchurch Police.
Manukau City Council reports putting in place initiatives to reduce problems that have been associated with street-based prostitution in the city. The Council commissioned a review of the commercial sex industry in Manukau and promoted networking between affected parties. The Council has also adopted Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidelines and installed monitored CCTV cameras in some areas (Manukau City Council, 2007). In addition to these non-legislative initiatives, in 2006 the Manukau City Council introduced a Local Bill to control street prostitution.
The Manukau Bill proposed to make it an offence to solicit in a public place anywhere in Manukau, and targeted both sex workers and clients. The Bill was voted down on several grounds; including that it essentially recriminalised soliciting in only one region of the country, and raised the possibility of the gradual revocation of the PRA if similar prohibitions were adopted by other local authorities (Local Government and Environment Committee, 2006).
The Local Government and Environment Committee considered that targeting street-based workers was not an appropriate or effective response to the disruptive behaviour experienced on the streets of Manukau, the causes of which were varied. It concluded that ‘initiatives that have the support of the local community, sex workers and their advocates, outreach workers, social agencies and the police have a better chance of long-term success than a legislated solution’. For further discussion of the Manukau Bill, see chapter nine.
8.8 International Experience
The CJRC literature review (International approaches to decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution) (CJRC,2007) identified a variety of approaches to street-based sex work around the world. Some approaches aim to abolish prostitution (street-based or otherwise) by criminalising the sex workers or their clients, or both (for example prohibiting soliciting and targeting ‘kerb crawlers’ (discussed below)). In jurisdictions that criminalise prostitution, there may be confusion about its legal status because of a tolerant climate. Prostitution is known by enforcement agencies to exist, but prosecutions are rare. Approaches may be adopted that aim to manage street prostitution and ameliorate the social nuisance associated with it. This approach is based on a pragmatic recognition that street-based sex work, and the harms associated with it, are not prevented under a criminalised regime.
The CJRC literature review also identified countries where prostitution is not criminal, but is heavily regulated. Regulations often relate to where prostitution can and cannot occur, with street-based prostitution either prohibited or restricted to certain areas. Some approaches, such as the Dutch tolerance zones (discussed below) are designed to manage, rather than prohibit street-based prostitution.
Some approaches include strategies to help sex workers work safer, whereas others are designed to assist sex workers to get off the streets or leave the industry altogether; some feature a combination of both approaches. Approaches which aim to limit the danger to sex workers, while also lessening any negative effects of street-based prostitution on the community, include safe-house brothels (discussed below) and tolerance zones.
8.8.1 British Approaches: Targeting Kerb-Crawlers and Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
The British Government’s strategy is to ‘disrupt street sex markets to significantly reduce the numbers involved in street prostitution’ (Home Office, 2006, [1]). The abolitionist approach adopted in Britain includes targeting ‘kerb crawlers’ and banning street-based sex workers from certain areas. Measures to target ‘kerb crawlers’ (clients driving slowly looking for street workers) under the Sexual Offences Act 1985 are based on a demand reduction ethos. Penalties for kerb crawling include warning letters, re-education schemes as an alternative to prosecution, prosecution, fines and the ‘naming and shaming’ of offenders. Since 2004, British law has included the option of disqualification from driving for those convicted of kerb crawling. Information from the Home Office indicates that this legislation is widely regarded as an effective deterrent. However, its effectiveness is dependent on consistent enforcement (Home Office, 2006, [2]).
In 1999, the British government introduced new powers for Police and local authorities to tackle anti-social behaviour. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) can be issued to low level offenders and those causing nuisance and disturbance. ASBOs ban people from continuing the anti-social behaviour, associating with certain people and being in a specified area. ASBOs are issued for a minimum of two years and are civil orders, not criminal penalties; although breaching an ASBO is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or up to five years in prison (Home Office, [3]).
There are widely divergent views on the effectiveness of ASBOs with respect to sex workers, and there has been no formal review of their effectiveness. However, the British Home Office has recognised that issuing ASBOs to sex workers may prevent them from accessing support services. ASBOs may also compromise the safety of street-based sex workers who can no longer work in the area from which they are prohibited (Home Office, 2006, [2]). While an area might temporarily be cleared of street prostitution through the use of ASBOs, the sex workers concerned are likely to move to isolated and rundown areas where they are placed at even greater risk of violent attack and even murder.
British NGOs have criticised the use of ASBOs in regards to street-based prostitution arguing their use endangered women and did not prevented kerb crawlers. ASBOs were considered of little benefit to those trying to exit prostitution. Rather than providing a way to assess drug and other rehabilitation programmes, ASBOs made it harder for women to access support services (Poppy Project, 2005). It was also noted breaching an ASBO may result in imprisonment (Scottish Government, 2005). However, because ASBOs are served under civil law there does not need to be proof that the actual street workers themselves, as opposed to the kerb crawlers or others, are causing the disturbance for which an ASBO may be issued (Poppy Project, 2005).
8.8.2 The Swedish Model: Prohibition of Purchase
In Sweden the Law Prohibiting the Purchase of Sexual Services was passed in 1999. The Swedish law is unusual in that it targets the clients of sex workers, rather than the sex workers. In Sweden, sex workers are seen as victims rather than perpetrators of criminal activity. The Swedish model is based on an understanding of gender relations in which prostitution is regarded as violence against women and an extension of male domination. The strategy is part of the Swedish Government’s policy to redress all gender inequality in Sweden. The legislation was amended in 2005 to extend to cases where payment has been promised or made by someone else in order to capture third parties.
The Swedish law has been attributed with reducing the number of street-based sex workers in Stockholm by up to 50% (Ekberg, 2004). The apparent success of the Swedish approach has been widely reported and is often cited by advocates for similar law reform. However, the claims about the law’s success have also been severely criticised for being politically motivated, and for being based on poorly researched and erroneous data (Clausen, 2007).
The National Board of Health and Welfare has been assigned by the Swedish government to gather information on and to monitor the extent and development of prostitution, and of social measures applied at the local level. To date, the Board has completed two reports. The first study found that the number of women engaged in prostitution declined between 1998 and 1999, which was the period when the new law against purchasing sex went into effect. The second report noted that there have been no significant changes in the extent of prostitution since 1999 (National Board of Health and Welfare, 2004).
Swedish sex workers dispute reports of significantly reduced numbers and point out that the claims are based on inaccurate government estimates of the numbers of street-based sex workers prior to and after the passage of the Act. Sex workers also report they have been forced to travel to neighbouring countries where there have been negative impacts (such as increased competition and decreased prices) on the sex industry as a result (Sambo, 2001).
The Swedish Act has been severely criticised by sex workers who argue that they are disadvantaged and exposed to risk because of the need to protect their clients from prosecution. As a result of the Act, it is argued prostitution has gone underground, and negotiating times have decreased significantly (Lund, 2007). Sex workers also contest the Police assertion that the Act has diminished the incidence of trafficking, and report an increased presence of organised crime syndicates and youth involved in sex work (Ministry of Justice, 2006).
8.8.3 Safe-House Brothels in Sydney
Safe-house brothels provide a venue for street-based sex workers to take clients and thus lessen the likelihood of their having sex in cars or other public places. This reduces the danger to sex workers, as well as the problems and annoyance caused by sexual acts taking place in inappropriate places.
Safe-house brothels are privately run and charge around $13 for the rent of a room. They provide free condoms, clean syringes, and safe sex information, but do not provide health care or social services. Safe house brothels are not designed to assist sex workers to exit the industry.
The Committee heard reports of a ‘safe-house’ that was established in Christchurch but closed after a short time. The Christchurch safe house was not well managed and became a nexus for criminal behaviour (YCD, 2006). One of the differences between the Christchurch and Sydney operations may be the level of involvement of the territorial authority. In New South Wales, all brothels (including safe-house brothels) are regulated and licensed by the local council under the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995. There is no similar requirement for councils in New Zealand to be involved in the regulation or running of commercial sex businesses.
8.8.4 Dutch Tolerance Zones
A tolerance or managed zone is generally an area in which no arrests are made for prostitution-related offences, although the enforcement of other laws (for example, drug offences) continues. Tolerance zones have been established in a number of Dutch cities (such as Utrecht) to reconcile the pragmatic acceptance of street prostitution as a feature of urban life with the need to combat any disturbances caused by its presence. Prostitution was legalised in the Netherlands in 2000 after many years of being unofficially tolerated. Street prostitution is, however, still illegal. The establishment of tolerance zones in the Netherlands is an attempt to stem the flow of illegally trafficked women into the sex industry and to break the links with organised crime.[58]
Utrecht’s tolerance zone is cited as a success because it is well policed and has ongoing funding and support from the local territorial authority. Health and social services for the sex workers are provided, as well as a dedicated police team and regular cleaning of the zone by council workers (Campbell and O’Neill, 2006). The Utrecht tolerance zone was set up after consultation with Police, sex workers and community groups. The project is overseen by a board which includes sex workers. Sex workers are also among the volunteers who work in the ‘Living Room’ which provides facilities for sex workers, such as a place to relax while not working, food and drinks, condoms and clean syringes.[59]
Comment
The Committee considers all forms of criminalisation run the risk of driving prostitution underground and producing negative health and safety consequences for sex workers.
The Committee supports aspects of initiatives such as safe-house brothels in Sydney, and Dutch tolerance zones, but considers neither are wholly appropriate models for the New Zealand street-based industry.
The Committee concludes the effects of street-based prostitution should be managed through proactive measures taken by local councils (the provision of lighting and street cleaning), Police (Police presence to discourage disorderly or anti-social behaviour), and NGOs (providing support services).
Because under age people are more likely to work in the street sector, a Police presence is necessary to discourage clients seeking contact with under age people. Such Police action should be used in conjunction with other child protection measures.
8.9 Support Strategies
The Committee acknowledges the valuable work done by the NGO sector to support street-based sex workers. Various approaches are taken, some of which aim to assist sex workers get off the streets and/or exit the industry all together. Best practice principles include programmes which provide sex workers with choices and facilitate sex workers freely deciding when and how they stop working.
Streetreach, NZPC and Te Aronga Hou Ināianei all provide street workers with support, and safe sex information. NZPC and Te Aronga Hou Ināianei also provide condoms. The Salvation Army and Streetreach aim to assist sex workers to leave the industry. Streetreach offers life skills courses, budgeting advice and advocacy support when a worker is dealing with other social agencies. For further discussion of exiting, see chapter five.
8.10 Why Legislation is Not the Answer
Prohibition and a criminalised regime prior to the PRA did not prevent street soliciting occurring, nor was street-based prostitution controlled in any constructive way by its illegal status. The argument that prohibiting street-based sex work, while allowing indoor prostitution, would ‘solve’ street prostitution is not supported either by history or by the research undertaken by CSOM. As noted above, the CSOM study found very little movement from the street to other sectors of the sex industry. An amendment to the PRA to prohibit street-based sex work would create legal and illegal sectors of the industry; the negative effect of which would be most strongly felt by street-based sex workers.
It has been suggested that street-based sex workers should be required to obtain authorisation from local authorities under rules governing trading in public places.
Regulation necessitates some form of enforcement and penalties for non-compliance. In its commentary on the Manukau Bill, the Local Government and Environment Committee (2006) noted imposing fines on street-based sex workers may ‘create a perverse incentive for offenders to continue prostitution work’ in order to pay the fine.
In addition, imposing fines and other criminal sanctions on street-based sex workers is contrary to the intent of the PRA, and is inappropriate in a decriminalised context
Any attempts to regulate street prostitution in the current climate may run the risk of driving street prostitution further underground. Prostitution is emerging from a long history of being an illegal, and therefore clandestine, activity. In addition, there is still a significant social stigma associated with involvement in street-based prostitution (for both workers and clients).
Street-based workers are likely to be merely displaced to another location to avoid detection by regulating authorities. In addition, negotiation times with clients will be decreased, thus increasing the dangers faced by street-based sex workers. Displacement also makes it harder for support services to access and assist sex workers.
Comment
The Committee considers legislation and regulation are not the best ways to deal with the harms associated with street-based sex work. Abolitionist policies and the ‘come down hard’ approach do not have the effect people want. Such approaches may increase the dangers faced by street-based sex workers, and displace any problems experienced by local communities onto other communities.
Decriminalisation did not create the problems experienced by communities in which street prostitution takes place, nor the harm experienced by sex workers. Similarly, decriminalisation has not solved all the problems associated with street-based sex work, nor can it be expected to.
Decriminalisation has removed the fear of being prosecuted previously felt by many sex workers (particularly the more visible street-based sex workers). The result is that sex workers now feel more able to work during the day and in well lit, safer places. Some street-based sex workers also feel Police now take reports of violence against sex workers more seriously. Therefore, decriminalisation, via the PRA, is partially achieving one of its purposes in terms of promoting the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers. However, the Committee recognises decriminalising prostitution alone cannot fully achieve this aim.
8.11 PLRC Position on Street-Based Sex Work
The Committee considers that the purpose of the PRA, particularly in terms of promoting the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers, cannot be fully realised in the street-based sector. The Committee recognises the danger street work poses to sex workers, and acknowledges the concern and upset it causes communities.
Therefore, the Committee considers street-based sex workers should be encouraged to either move to a safer, indoor setting, or leave sex work altogether. At the very least, street workers should be supported to work as safely as possible and in a manner that causes the least disruption to local residents. The Committee also acknowledges that street work is a choice some sex workers make even though alternative venues are available.
The Committee recommends that the present street-based prostitution areas are managed in a way that will minimise the potential for disturbance to local residents and provide as much support and protection for street-based workers as possible. Many local authorities have development plans or community plans that talk about ensuring the safety of the community. Sex workers are also members of the community.
The Committee recognises that, historically, legislative approaches aimed at eradicating street-based sex work have not worked. In addition, the Committee considers any form of prohibition (whether targeting workers or clients) increases the vulnerability of sex workers, and adds to the harms associated with street-based sex work.
Solutions proposed for the management of street-based prostitution must have the support of all parties affected. Consultation processes must include sex workers and their advocates, as well as local authorities, Police, and NGOs. There must be accurate identification of the problem to be addressed; thorough investigation into the causes of the problem; and a clear idea of the outcomes sought, as well as an understanding of the needs of the target group and how best to meet those needs.
8.11.1 Street Workers Should be Supported to Work Safely and with Consideration for Local Communities
Street-based sex workers should be encouraged to work in areas where they will be safe, while at the same time cause the least disturbance to residents. To this end, the Committee recommends greater support for NGOs and outreach workers providing information and guidance to sex workers about safe work practices and alternatives to street work. Outreach workers should also continue to encourage the appropriate disposal of used condoms by sex workers and their clients.
(Article truncated for length — see the original archive for the full text.)