New Zealand

New Zealand is increasingly being held up as a country where deciminalising sex work has worked. Many such claims have been made by prostitution advocates. Given what is known about human trafficking, that it is crime of economic benefit and that the market from which it derives this benefit is fuelled by a demand for sexual services one must ask a compelling question. Are we to accept that human nature is somehow different in New Zealand and the laws of economics simply do not apply? Certainly legalisation acts on neither human nature nor does it change the laws of economics. Can there be some other rational explanation? How robust is the claim that legalisation has ended human trafficking in New Zealand?

A reminder of some of the facts concerning human trafficking: it does not require travel to take place, it does not require borders to be crossed and most human trafficking is internal trafficking (within the confines of a country rather than across its borders [Trans-national trafficking]). However these are not facts reflected in New Zealand's legislation. Current legislation only recognises trans-national human trafficking, requiring borders to be crossed. This is a formidable challenge. New Zealand is not part of a political, economic and social bloc like those that are part of the European (EU). New Zealand is not part of a Schengen Agreement like many European countries which have done away with border controls. And finally New Zealand lies some 926 miles away from the next nearest land mass, that of Australia, thus making its borders all the more difficult to assault.

So one can conclude not there is no human trafficking in New Zealand, but rather that those who fall prey to human trafficking in New Zealand are excluded from being classed as such by virtue of New Zealand's law. This law defined human trafficking in a manner which is inconsistent with the United Nations' own definition, the Palermo Protocol. A report entitled Human Trafficking And New Zealand by Justice Susan Glazebrook recognises the limitations of New Zealand's law: 

''The limitation of New Zealand‟s provision to external trafficking can be contrasted with the United Kingdom‟s legislation. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 not only creates the offence of trafficking into the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation, it creates the offence of trafficking within the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation and trafficking out of the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation. Thus, the United Kingdom provides legislative proscription of both internal and external trafficking' (Glazebrook n.d, p.19)

The limitation was also noted by Lincoln Tan when he wrote about the issue in his 2010 article NZ's sex-slave cases 'slip under radar':

'No one has been prosecuted in New Zealand for human trafficking but critics say that is only because a difference in definition is allowing cases to slip under the radar.'

Indeed there is reason to suppose that human trafficking is a problem in New Zealand. In May 2008 the Prostitution Law Reform Review Committee Report was published. Some of the findings state:

• 'The Committee is very concerned that it appears there are still some managed sex workers who are being required by brothel operators to provide commercial sexual services against their will on occasion.' (p.14)
• Of more than 760 sex workers surveyed 10% reported they'd been physically assaulted in the past 12 months, 3% admitted to being raped by a client during that time, 17% had received abusive messages from a client and 5% had been held against their will in the 12 month period. (p. 56)
• While some were willing to report violence to police very few were willing to see the matter prosecuted. (p.57)
• The Committee noted that the Prostitution Reform Act refers to 'a person under 18 as being "used" in prostitution, recognising the exploitative nature nature and illegality of the use of under age people in prostitution.' (p.99) It should be borne in mind that under the internationally agreed Palermo Protocol definition such persons would be other jurisdictions be immediately classed as victims of human trafficking.
• It seems that decriminalisation has brought little transparency in some regards. The report was able to conclude that there were '2,332 sex workers in the areas included in the study.' (p.13). It notes that another report had concluded there had been some 5,932 sex workers in New Zealand (p.13).
• Children were being used to provide commercial sexual services. In total '1.3% of the total number number of sex workers surveyed' were children. (p.16) Incidentally if the 1.3% figure is applied to the estimated population of sex workers in New Zealand 2,332 to 5,932 then there would be 30 to 77 children working in prostitution in New Zealand.

The extent of child prostitution and the unwillingess to categorise this as human trafficking seems to be a characteristic of New Zealand's contemporary situation. One  report claimed that girls as young as 12 years of age are working in a red light district. According to ECPAT 'there are anecdotal stories of sex workers being trafficked both across the border and internally' in New Zealand. This in a country which contends that it does not have a problem with human trafficking! Indeed much of the reason that some New Zealand does not have a problem may be more do with the fact that its law does not permit problems to be identified in accordance with international norms, rather than anything to do with facts concerning the actual state of human trafficking in the country.

The United States Trafficking in Persons Report 2011 says of the country:

'New Zealand is a source country for underage girls subjected to sex trafficking within the country''

The report also states:

'New Zealand is reportedly a destination country for women from Asian countries, such as Hong Kong, Thailand, Taiwan, and China, and Eastern Europe trafficked into forced prostitution, though no new substantive information about such cases was discovered in the past year. According to a press report during the year, women, including some from Malaysia, are recruited by labor agents, but upon arrival in New Zealand, are handed over to brothel owners, who confiscate their passports and force them into prostitution for up to 18 hours a day to repay the “loan” of recruitment and transportation costs.'

Conclusion

At the very least the comparison of New Zealand, whose defintion of human trafficking does not conform to the Palermo Protocol, to other countries, whose definition does, is a flawed one.

The contention that New Zealand does not have a human trafficking problem is largely dependent on whether one recognises internal human trafficking as a form of human trafficking. Certainly the country has a problem with child prostitution and this would, under the Palermo Protocol, normally be classed as human trafficking.

The contention that New Zealand does not have a human trafficking problem because it has decriminalised prostitution is also similarly flawed. In this instance the two are unrelated. New Zealand does not have a problem by virtue of the fact that it has chosen not to classify the problem.