Decriminalisation of sex work
The Secretary
Queensland Law Reform Commission
PO Box 13312
George Street Post Shop QLD 4003
By Email: lawreform.commission@justice.qld.gov.au
Dear Madam/Sir
Framework for decriminalization of Sex Work
Kindly accept this submission in relation to the Queensland Law Reform Commission inquiry into a framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland. The QCCL thanks the Law Reform Commission for the opportunity to contribute feedback regarding this important inquiry.
The QCCL is an organisation of volunteers with limited time and resources. Consequently, this submission does not address all the issues in the discussion paper.
1. Overview and Principles
The QCCL supports the decriminalisation of prostitution.
At the start of this submission, it is worth reviewing some of the arguments usually made against sex work[1].
1.1 Risks of job
No doubt sex workers are subject to violence and other risks such as disease and accidental injuries. But many other jobs involve risks. Mining despite all the many advances still involves risks even in advanced economies such as ours. But no one proposes banning it on that ground.
In fact, mining is an example of what needs to be done for sex workers - everything possible needs to be done to ensure their safety and security. In our view this can only be done when sex work is made legal.
On this topic Martha Nussbaum[2] compares sex work to boxing saying:
“It is probably less risky than boxing, another activity in which working-class people try to survive and flourish by subjecting their bodies to some risk of harm. There is a stronger case for paternalistic regulation of boxing than of prostitution, and externalities (the glorification of violence as an example to the young) make boxing at least as morally problematic, probably more so”.
1.2 Psychological harm/Stigma
Many point to the psychological harm and stigma experienced by sex workers. However, the principal cause of this is that sex workers are treated as outcasts and systematically excluded from society.
Martha Nussbaum addresses this issue as follows[3]:
In short, sex hierarchy causes stigma, commonly, not through feminist critique but through a far more questionable set of social meanings, meanings that anyone concerned with justice for women should call into question. For it is these same meanings that are also used to justify the seclusion of women, the veiling of women, and the genital mutilation of women.
The view boils down to the view that women are essentially immoral and dangerous and will be kept in control by men only if men carefully engineer things so that they do not get out of bounds. The prostitute, being seen as the uncontrolled and sexually free woman, is in this picture seen as particularly dangerous, both necessary to society and in need of constant subjugation.
1.3 Economic exploitation
A third argument is that prostitutes are economically exploited.
This argument often refers to the fact that sex workers have to hustle for their work. But many people have to do that from used car salespeople to lawyers. But we do not ban lawyers on this ground.
Another version of this argument is that sex workers are exploited because they are not treated as individual human beings. Their customers are only after one thing and treat them as objects. However, this describes our relationship with any professional. We are not interested in them as persons. We are only interested in what they can do for us as clients or customers.
As Ericsson puts it:
“It is simply cultural blindness and sexual taboos that prevent so many of us from seeing this.[4]”
The argument that sex workers are exploited in the work environment is equally applicable to many areas of employment and demands a reform of employment law in general and the enforcement of those laws, not the prohibition of sex work[5].
1.4 Commercialisation
A further point is that the sale of sex represents the continuing commodification of social relations. But whatever one’s of view of that maybe sex work goes back a long way in human history well before the development of capitalism.
1.5 Swedish model
In recent years the feminist critique has resulted in a new approach to sex work in various countries, most notably Sweden. 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. It involves the rejection of any possibility of agency in sex workers.
Under this system sex work is to be suppressed by criminalising the conduct of the customer.
The review of the decriminalisation of prostitution in New Zealand made the following comments on this approach:
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). 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). 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[6]
Evaluations of these approaches suggest little change in the overall level of prostitution services provided, with demand being either relocated elsewhere or in the transactions being negotiated in more clandestine local environments (Kilvington et al, 2001). When asked if anything might deter them from paying for sex, few men in an East London study mentioned criminal sanctions as holding any relevance (Coy et al, 2007).[7]
For civil libertarians proposals such as this raise very serious concerns about the powers that would need to be given to law enforcement and other agencies to achieve the outcome of suppressing sex work.
We know that sex work has existed in human society for millennia. All attempts so far to suppress it have failed. In fact, historical evidence would suggest that all attempts at suppression have just succeeded in driving the business deeper and deeper underground[8].
As Ericsson puts it, “it would take at least a society as repugnant as that described by Orwell in his 1984 in terms of totalitarian supervision and coercive measures to suppress prostitution.”[9]
In our view it would be impossible to effectively suppress prostitution without violating a number of fundamental rights.
Martha Nussbaum put the point this way:
“But to rule that marriage as such should be illegal on the grounds that it reinforces male dominance would be an excessive intrusion on liberty, even if one should believe marriage irredeemably unequal.
So too, I think, with prostitution: what seems right is to use law to protect the bodily safety of prostitutes from assault, to protect their rights to their incomes against the extortionate behaviour of pimps, to protect poor women in developing countries from forced trafficking and fraudulent offers, and to guarantee their full civil rights in the countries where they end up—to make them, in general, equals under the law, both civil and criminal.
But the criminalisation of prostitution seems to pose a major obstacle to that equality[10].”
As civil libertarians we must presume that all adults of full capacity are making their own choices. There are of course exceptions to this rule, well known to the law such as parent-child, doctor-patient etc. But outside these respect for human agency requires us to behave as if adults of capacity are doing as they freely choose in the absence of evidence suggesting to the contrary.
In this regard we note that the New Zealand Review, whilst recognising the difficulty of proving coercion stated that information available to it suggested coercion was not widespread, with many being happy to engage in sex work.
This is notwithstanding that, as recognised above, in a capitalist society most of us make some choices out of economic necessity. To address that we need laws that secure to people as much freedom as possible, including by collective action where possible.
The question is whether it is possible to construct a system of sex work which a well-informed person could not reasonably reject[11]. In our view such a system can be constructed, which recognises the agency of the workers but secures them to the maximum extent, consistent with respecting that agency, from the acknowledged downsides of sex work in our society, many of which are rooted in the sexual hierarchy described by Nussbaum.
2. New Zealand model
The QCCL supports the approach adopted in New Zealand, implemented by the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ) (PRA). This approach not only decriminalised prostitution but granted sex workers several new protections under employment law. Indeed, a strong feature of the legislation was that it ensured employment law rights also applied to sex workers as a safeguard. Overall, the QCCL would support the implementation of a similar model, focusing on goals of:[12]
1. Safeguarding the human rights of sex workers and emphasising protection from exploitation;
2. Promoting the welfare of sex workers;
3. Protecting public health; and
4. Prohibiting prostitution in those under 18.
We acknowledge that sex workers, as a population, often suffer from social stigma and are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and violence.[13] The approach seen in New Zealand and that we advocate can be described as a ‘pure licensing system’, which can be contrasted with Queensland’s current emphasis on a ‘social control’ model.[14] We believe a strict or invasive licensing system benefits neither the industry, community or the government. A licensing system that effectually replicates a criminalised approach only increases the risk of harm to the community.
The New Zealand Review includes a number of findings relevant to this inquiry:
i. The reform has had a marked effect in safeguarding the right of sex workers to refuse particular clients and practices, chiefly by empowering sex workers through removing the illegality of their work - page 14
ii. It emphasised the need for continuing support for sex workers from NGOs, especially those who wish to leave
iii. Arguments that decriminalisation has increased the numbers of people in the sex industry are largely founded on the flawed assumption that decriminalisation would increase the numbers of people involved in prostitution. The Committee was satisfied that such assumptions have been proved to be unfounded
iv. There is conflicting evidence on whether violence is reported more often since decriminalisation, but clearly there is still a marked reluctance amongst sex workers to follow through on complaints. The report concludes that stigmatisation plays a key role in the non-reporting of incidents.
v. There are strong financial incentives to take up sex work and remain in the industry. The report refers on page 67 to a 2003 study of 216 sex workers in Queensland aged 18 or older showed an average weekly income of $1,500 a week when the average weekly earnings in Queensland was approximately $900 (pre tax) The report stated on page 61 and 62 sex work can offer more money than is available from ‘straight' jobs.
For young sex workers in particular, money allows immediate gratification, which other waged work cannot provide. The evidence showed that most had entered the sex industry to support families, pursue higher education, pay off debts and buy cars, houses and/or other large expensive items. There was no mention in any of the qualitative interviews of coercion into the sex industry. A quarter of all survey participants did not want to do any other work.
Over a third of all survey participants (39%) reported that they remained in sex work because they enjoyed the sex and street-based workers were the most likely sector to report this - page 68. 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 at Page 120.
vi. While there is a common perception that sex workers are in the industry through desperation or lack of choice, most are not, and some may be offended by being offered assistance to leave. The CJRC key informant study found that some sex workers who worked in SOOB[15]s, for example, did not feel that any assistance with exiting was necessary and some reminded the researchers that it was a career choice they were very content with - page 70
vii. The negative aspects of working in the sex industry included continuing stigma and harassment from the general public to street-based workers, safety issues for all sex workers, the health consequences of shift work and inequitable work environments experienced by some - page 74
viii. Low self-esteem and feelings of social exclusion are not uncommon (Hester and Westmarland, 2004 -Page 76
3. Chapter 9: Licensing of sex work business operators
3.1 Whether a licensing system is needed
We submit that licensing constitutes a mechanism facilitating regulation of the industry (thus ‘drawing it into the mainstream’) while avoiding the negative impacts of criminalisation.[16] However, we acknowledge the concerns from key groups (such as the Australian Sex Workers Association, Respect Inc and Decrim Qld) that licensing systems hinder decriminalisation and constitute heavy administrative burdens.[17] However, we submit that licensing does not negate decriminalisation - many decriminalised pursuits or activities are regulated by a licensing system - decriminalisation does not necessarily demand that an industry be completely deregulated. We argue a key benefit of implementing a licensing system is that it enhances the protection of sex workers by allowing for supervision and background checks. The keeping of administrative records and the use of background checks as a pre-requisite to obtaining a licence enable authorities to disqualify would-be operators from establishing or operating businesses where there is evidence of non-compliance with health and safety regulations. Therefore, while we acknowledge the concerns raised about the licensing system, we would advocate one be implemented due to its capacity to enhance the safety of sex workers.
3.2 Features of a licensing system
The licensing system should replicate that of New Zealand, where the industry is perceived ‘neutrally’, and is regulated by a generic body that also regulates other industries.[18] The system should uphold the health, safety and rights of sex workers as guiding principles. The current approach in Queensland involves differential treatment of licensing the sex work industry as compared to other industries, and we submit that this change to align with the New Zealand model.[19]
3.3 Licence requirements
We submit that small owner operated brothels (where no more than four sex workers work, and each retains control over their earnings) should not require a licence. Any business where more than four sex workers work; or that have an ‘operator’ in a position of authority within the business, should be required to hold a licence.
3.4 Licencing checks and decision making
In keeping with a ‘lighter’ licensing approach, we submit the licensing system be limited to checking whether a person has serious disqualifying offences. This provides an important protection for workers in the industry without unduly restricting access to the industry.
The decision maker should not be required to, nor have the power to, form an opinion on a person’s suitability. In New Zealand, the Registrar responsible for issuing certificates has no discretion.[20] Provided that the requirements of the application form have been fulfilled, the applicant is an adult and is not disqualified from holding a certificate, the application must be granted. We would advocate for a similar approach.
3.5 Licencing fee
The fee for the licence should be set at a nominal amount.
3.6 Length of validity
Currently, a licence is granted for one year only and renewal requires a full application be made again.[21] In the interests of lessening the administrative burden associated with this, we propose the licence should be valid for a longer time period.
3.7 Penalties for holding invalid licence
Given the concerns raised about the extensive powers of the police force as regards sex work,[22] we submit that a civil penalty only is appropriate. In the case of suspension or cancellation of licence, a civil penalty should be applied.
3.8 Bodies of authority
In Queensland currently, the sex work industry is regulated much more heavily than other industries. As mentioned previously, reducing differential treatment of the sex work industry (as compared to other industries) is an important aspect of decriminalisation. We submit that an approach closely resembling the New Zealand model be followed, which sees a generic body that also deals with other industries be primarily responsible for regulating the sex work industry. Thus, an existing body with experience in dealing with other industries is the preferable option.
3.9 Review of suspended/cancelled licences
The right to review is a fundamental principle in liberal, human-rights based democracies, as well as within our judicial system. Decisions to refuse an application for a licence or to suspend or cancel a licence should be reviewable by QCAT. Avenues of appeal must be available.
3.10 Balancing of licence system
We submit that extending the life of licences and narrowing the class that requires them would at once enable the government to protect against illegal activity while lessening the administrative and resource burdens inevitably placed on governments and the sex work industry.
3.11 Involvement of QPS
Historically and currently, the relationship between the police force and sex workers has often been fraught.[23] The police force in Queensland are equipped with extensive powers under the PPRA that allow them to enter premises and impersonate sex workers and clients.[24] Research indicates that these powers serve to frame police as both ‘protectors’ and ‘prosecutors’, meaning that many in the sex work industry report feeling unsafe and uncomfortable when interacting with police, with many avoiding interactions altogether.[25] Thus, we advocate a reduced role for police in interacting with sex workers in their employment capacity.
4. Chapter 10: Workplace Laws
4.1 Health and Safety
The QCCL advocates an approach consistent with the New Zealand model, which imposes responsibilities on operators under health and safety legislation to ensure people comply with relevant standards. Compliance is monitored by the licensing system. This would ensure that sex workers are able meet work health and safety standards.
We submit that a code of practice made under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 is an appropriate mechanism to communicate clearly to the industry how to meet work health and safety obligations.
4.2 Contracts for or to arrangements
The PRA states that a contract for or to arrange sex work is not illegal or void on public policy or similar grounds.[26] The QCCL submits that Queensland lawmakers should follow this approach and implement such a provision.
4.3 Refusal to perform or continue performing sex work
Section 17 (1) of the PRA establishes that a person may, at any time, refuse to provide or refuse to continue to provide commercial sexual services to any person.
We support the New Zealand position and thus submit that a new law should be created in Queensland reflecting this provision. Such a law would constitute a legislative safeguard that upholds the human rights of sex workers and acts as a deterrent against assault occurring in the course of work.
5. Chapter 11: Public health and the health of sex workers
Laws and measures to promote public health for sex workers and their clients should apply to, and cover:
1. The use of prophylactics;
2. Managing the risk of sexually transmitted infections; and
3. Sexual health testing.
We submit that the implementation of laws pertaining to the use of prophylactics and risk management of sexually transmitted infections is an appropriate mechanism to ensure proper regard is had to the health of sex workers, their clients and public health overall.
5.1 Model of implementation
The QCCL supports the New Zealand model, which places responsibility on the operators of businesses of prostitution to adopt and adhere to safer sex practices.[27]
Notably, these include taking all reasonable steps to ensure that: no services are provided unless prophylactics or other barrier methods are utilised (where those services involve penetration or activities associated with transmission of sexual infections), providing health information to sex workers and to clients, and the prominent display of health information on the premises.[28]
We submit this also applies to sex workers who work independently or with one or two other people. We submit that non-compliance with these reasonable steps constitutes an offence entailing a fine not exceeding $10,000.[29]
Where working as sole traders, sex workers and their clients who do not comply with these requirements should be liable to pay a fine of no more than $2,000.[30]
The New Zealand Act provides powers of entry for the purpose of inspection of premises, which arguably constitutes an important overview mechanism to encourage compliance.[31]
6. Chapter 12: Planning laws and sex work
6.1 Local government discretion to prohibit commercial sex work businesses in their entire local government area
The Planning Regulation 2017 enables local governments to disallow the development of brothels in towns of less than 25,000 residents. This discretion has been exercised in over 200 shires and towns.[32] Given the QLR’s objective of developing a regulatory framework for regulation of sex work as a legitimate industry, it is difficult to justify why local governments should be equipped with discretion to prohibit the development of commercial sex work businesses in their entire local government area.
There is a clear potential for local governments, based on their own perceptions of the industry, to apply this discretion in a discriminatory manner, which may lead to the practical banning of sex work businesses.[33] Such an outcome would be contrary to the equitable and fair regulation of sex work as an area of employment.
Additionally, the exercise of discretion between different local governments is likely to result in differential outcomes across different local government areas. Again, it is hard to justify this as an equitable outcome. Section 14 of the PRA provides that a territorial authority may regulate the location of brothels, subject to considerations pertaining to nuisance, protecting public health and minimising offensive behaviour in public.[34]
The Prostitution Law Review Committee of 2008, tasked with analysing the impact of the PRA after five years, found that community concern often existed pertaining to brothels operating in residential areas. Such concerns are potentially likely to also exist in the Australian context. While we recognise the importance of respecting community sentiment and concern, there also exists a need to balance this with the right of sex workers and operators to engage in business and trade.
Therefore, we respectfully submit that the local government not have the discretion to prohibit commercial sex work businesses in the entire local government area, but instead adopt an approach with less discretion, as seen in New Zealand.
6.2 Assessment of development applications for commercial sex work businesses
Consistent with the approach seen in New Zealand (where the sex work industry is perceived no differently to other industries), and in the interests of lessening administrative burdens, we advocate that commercial sex work businesses have to comply with the planning requirements that other businesses comply with.
Moreover, the QLR notes that imposing additional requirements for sex work businesses does not meet the aim of decriminalisation, and as such, we argue this not be implemented.
i. Assessment of categories for commercial sex work businesses
We submit that local governments, due to the potential for discriminatory application of discretion, should not be able to set the categories of assessment in their local government area.[35]
The Commission’s paper noted that the current regulatory framework can impact the safety of sex workers by essentially forcing brothels to operate in industrial areas that may be ‘unsafe, isolated or lacking in amenities such as lighting and public transport.’[36]
The potential for local governments to exercise this discretion in a discriminatory manner leads us to submit that local governments should not have this discretion.
ii. Size limit on commercial sex work
We note that floor space usage ratios are regarded as impractical by key groups such as Respect Inc, Australian Sex Workers Association and Decrim Qld. [37] In light of this, we submit that there should not be size limits on commercial sex work businesses.
iii. Review of decisions about development applications for commercial sex work businesses
In keeping with the objective of lessening the administrative and resource burden, we submit that an alternative review mechanism for development applications is not necessary.
6.3 Whether separation distances apply to commercial sex work businesses
This question requires balancing the full decriminalisation of the sex work industry with community expectations, particularly those relating to public amenity and enjoyment of public space.
Separation distances may conform to community expectations, but we also note that regard should be had to the objective of the full decriminalisation of sex work. We note that New Zealand imposes no separation distances; but this aspect of the regime has generated much community debate.[38]
6.4 Home-based sex work businesses
There should be consistent planning codes across Queensland regarding sex work businesses. As noted previously, we advocate that the discretion of local governments should be limited.
We submit that home-based sex work businesses have the same planning requirements as other home-based businesses.
7. CHAPTER 13: ADVERTISING SEX WORK
Our position is that as a matter of principle once sex work is decriminalised it should be subject to the same advertising regulations as any other industry.
This raises the general question as to what the law should be in relation to the censorship of sexually explicit material[39].
Traditionally of course our position has been that adults should have access to sexually explicit material, with the laws focusing on preventing access to the material by minors. And in so far as traditional media still matters that should remain the focus[40].
As the discussion paper notes, most advertising today is conducted online. In that context, to access sexually explicit material you have to go looking for it.
It is our view that it is the role of parents and other adults to police the access of children to explicit material on the Internet. Any other model would be to reduce adults on the Internet to the level of infants.
But these are of course statements of general principle, applicable to any type of sexually explicit material.
We do not see any reason for the specific prohibition on the use of the phrase “massage parlour” by sex workers. The use of that phrase should be regulated by the general rules relating to misleading and deceptive conduct.
8. CHAPTER 14: PUBLIC SOLICITATION
It follows from what we have said that we oppose the prohibition of publicly soliciting for sex work except in specific circumstances such as those set out in the Victorian law. We believe it legitimate to prohibit solicitation outside places such as schools, churches, hospitals and the like.
The New Zealand review[41] expressed concern about laws introduced in that country by local authorities, which it says are quite inconsistent with the principle of decriminalisation. To avoid the development of a similar situation here, we support the new law containing provisions similar to those in Victoria as described in paragraph 14.32 of the consultation paper.
Consistently with this, the law should be amended to prohibit police officers from issuing a “move on" direction to a person on the basis that they are suspected of soliciting for sex work. The public nuisance law should be amended to exclude from its operation soliciting in public for sex work.
This council has been concerned about the use and abuse of the “move on" power since it was introduced. The only way to prevent that abuse would be to repeal the power. That is beyond the scope of this inquiry. On the other hand, there is no doubt the police must retain power to deal with legitimate public nuisances. At least, a public nuisance charge affords the prospect of a review by a court.
9. CHAPTER 16: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SEX WORKERS
In our view, at the current time, institutions in our society have rules and practices which systematically disadvantage sex workers. The New Zealand experience supports the proposition that decriminalisation on its own will not bring these practices to an end.
We consider that the current relevant attribute in the Anti-Discrimination Act,“lawful sexual activity” is too narrow. We would support an amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act to remove that attribute and replace it with the attributes of “sex work” and “sex worker”
We endorse the proposal that these terms be defined in the same way as they are defined in the Northern Territory Sex Industry Act 2019:
Sex work is the provision by a person of services that involve the person or persons participating in sexual activity with another person in return for payment or reward. Sex worker means a person who performs sex work.
We support the repeal of section 28 of the Anti-Discrimination Act. In our submission this provision represents a rule of our society rooted in irrational prejudices against sex workers. There is no basis for any perception that a sex worker should not be working with children. As is always the case, decisions about the suitability of a person to work with children, should be made on a case-by-case basis by reference to each individual’s personal characteristics and behaviour.
We also support the repeal of section 128 of the Anti-Discrimination Act. We can understand accommodation providers might have difficulties with this. Legitimately providers wish to avoid noise, other forms of nuisance to their other guests and legitimately, perhaps as a result of legal compulsion, have rules which prohibit persons from carrying on business in their accommodation. However, the repeal of this provision will not prevent accommodation providers applying these rules, so long as they are applied to everybody. Having said that, we must also knowledge the prospect of a claim by sex workers of disparate impact. Such a claim would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is reasonable under section 11 of the Act.
Additionally, it is clear to us, that this issue needs to be addressed by the introduction to Queensland of Safe House Brothels for use by street-based sex workers[42].
We thank QCCL intern Kate Power for her major contribution to the preparation of this submission.
We trust this is of assistance to you in your deliberations.
[1] This discussion follows Lars O Ericsson Charges Against Prostitution: An Attempt at a Philosophical Assessment 1980 90 Ethics 335
[2] “Whether from Reason or Prejudice”: taking money for bodily services 1998 27 The Journal of Legal Studies 693 at page 711
[3] ibid page 709
[4] Ericsson opcit 353
[5]another issue for this argument is that it is clear from the evidence that a large portion of the prostitutes, especially in metropolitan areas, are male homosexuals.- ibid page 349
[6] Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 page 128 (“the New Zealand Review”)
[7] Ibid page 166
[8] Ibid page 148
[9] Ericsson page 359
[10] Nussbaum page 720
[11] Brian Barry Justice as Impartiality OUP 1995 67-72
[12] Parliamentary Library, ‘ Prostitution law reform in New Zealand’, New Zealand Parliament, (Web Page, 10 July 2012) [] < https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLSocRP12051/prostitution-law-reform-in-new-zealand>; Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ) s3.
[13] Lynzi Armstrong, and Cherida Fraser ‘The Disclosure Dilemma: Stigma and Talking About Sex Work in the Decriminalised Context’ in Lynzi Armstrong and Gillian Abel (eds), Sex Work and the New Zealand Model: Decriminalisation and Social Change (Bristol University Press, 1 2020) 178. And the New Zealand Review page 58
[14] Thomas Crofts and Tracey Summerfield, 'The Licensing of Sex Work in Australia and New
Zealand' (2006) 13(2) eLaw Journal 269.
[15] small owner operated brothels
[16] Crofts and Summerfield opcit
[17] Scarlet Alliance Australian Sex Workers Association, #DecrimQLD, Respect Inc, “Info sheet on ‘A framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland’ Consultation Paper WP 80’ (Info Sheet, no date) [15]; Scarlet Alliance, “Full decriminalisation of sex work in Australia”, Briefing Paper (Briefing paper, no date) https://scarletalliance.org.au/library/briefing_paper_full_decrim.
https://respectqld.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Decrim/Info-Kit-QLRC-May22.pdf.
[18] Thomas Crofts and Tracey Summerfield, 'The Licensing of Sex Work in Australia and New
Zealand' (2006) 13(2) eLaw Journal 269.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Thomas Crofts and Tracey Summerfield, 'The Licensing of Sex Work in Australia and New
Zealand' (2006) 13(2) eLaw Journal 278.
[21] Ibid 276.
[22] Scarlet Alliance Australian Sex Workers Association, #DecrimQLD, Respect Inc, “Info sheet on ‘A framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland’ Consultation Paper WP 80’ (Info Sheet, no date) https://respectqld.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Decrim/Info-Kit-QLRC-May22.pdf.
[23] Thomas Crofts and Tracey Summerfield, 'The Licensing of Sex Work in Australia and New Zealand' (2006) 13(2) eLaw Journal 269.
[24] Scarlet Alliance Australian Sex Workers Association, #DecrimQLD, Respect Inc, “Info sheet on ‘A framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland’ Consultation Paper WP 80’ (Info Sheet, no date) [4] https://respectqld.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Decrim/Info-Kit-QLRC-May22.pdf.
[25] Jan Jordan, ‘The Sex Industry in New Zealand: A Literature Review’, Waitangi Tribunal (Literature Review March 2005) [47] <https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/sex-industry-in-nz.pdf>; Scarlet Alliance, “Full decriminalisation of sex work in Australia”, Briefing Paper (Briefing paper, no date) [2] https://scarletalliance.org.au/library/briefing_paper_full_decrim.
https://respectqld.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Decrim/Info-Kit-QLRC-May22.pdf.
[26] Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ), s7.
[27] Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ) s8; Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ) s9; Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ) s10.
[28] Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ) s8 (1) (a); (b); (c).
[29] Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ) s8 (2)
[30] Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ) s9 (4)
[31] Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ)s24 (1); Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ) s26.
[32] R Easten & J Fear, ‘The Prostitution Amendment Bill 2001 (QLD)’ (Research Brief No 2001/29, Queensland Parliamentary Library, 2001).
[33] Scarlet Alliance, “Full decriminalisation of sex work in Australia”, Briefing Paper (Briefing paper, no date) https://scarletalliance.org.au/library/briefing_paper_full_decrim.
https://respectqld.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Decrim/Info-Kit-QLRC-May22.pdf.
[34] Local Government Act 2002 (NZ) s145; Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (NZ) s14.
[35] Scarlet Alliance Australian Sex Workers Association, #DecrimQLD, Respect Inc, “Info sheet on ‘A framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland’ Consultation Paper WP 80’ (Info Sheet, no date) https://respectqld.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Decrim/Info-Kit-QLRC-May22.pdf.
[36] Queensland Law Reform Commission, A framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland (Consultation paper no 80, 2022), 4.9
[37] Scarlet Alliance Australian Sex Workers Association, #DecrimQLD, Respect Inc, “Info sheet on ‘A framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland’ Consultation Paper WP 80’ (Info Sheet, no date) https://respectqld.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Decrim/Info-Kit-QLRC-May22.pdf.
[38] Parliamentary Library, ‘ Prostitution law reform in New Zealand’, New Zealand Parliament, (Web Page, 10 July 2012) [] < https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLSocRP12051/prostitution-law-reform-in-new-zealand>.
[39] we have also made a distinction between violent erotica and non violent erotica, which appears to be justified by the psychological literature.
[40] see the interesting discussion by Tim Scanlon in “Freedom of expression and categories of expression” in The Difficulty of Tolerance Cambridge University Press 2003 page 84 at 106-112
[41] pages 130-2
[42] Scarlet Alliance “Street based sex workers” https://scarletalliance.org.au/issues/sbsw/