Legal, Licensed, Ordinary: How New South Wales Decriminalised Sex Work
In Sydney, a sex worker can advertise online, set her own rate, and share a flat with a colleague so neither of them ever has to see a client alone. In England and Wales, the first of those is legal and the last can bring someone into conflict with brothel-keeping laws. Two people working from the same premises for safety can, depending on the circumstances, fall within those provisions.
That gap is not an accident. New South Wales and England and Wales made two very different decisions about how to treat sex work, and thirty years on the results are worth looking at plainly.
NSW decriminalised most of its sex industry in 1995. It did not license the trade or set up a register. Instead, it removed many of the specific criminal restrictions and brought much of the industry within ordinary regulatory frameworks. England and Wales kept selling sex legal but criminalised a number of activities around it. The two choices produce very different day-to-day realities, and the sharpest difference is safety.
What New South Wales actually did
NSW decriminalised most of its sex industry through the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995. The shift had started earlier, in 1979, when reforms began changing how the state dealt with street-based sex work. By 1995 the bulk of the industry sat outside sex-work-specific criminal law.
The word that matters is decriminalisation, not legalisation. A licensing model sets up a special permit system: you apply, you register, you operate according to a separate regulatory regime. NSW did the opposite. It removed much of the special criminal framework and allowed sex work to be dealt with largely through the ordinary laws and regulations that apply elsewhere. There is no general sex-work licence in NSW, workers do not have to register simply because they are sex workers, and there is no system of mandatory health testing simply to work.
Brothels are primarily dealt with through planning and development rules rather than being prohibited simply because they are brothels. Local councils have a role in regulating premises and can take action where planning requirements or other laws are breached. But the starting position is simple: operating a brothel is not inherently a criminal offence simply because it is a brothel.
Some things stay firmly illegal, and they are the ones that matter. Coercion, trafficking and exploitation remain subject to criminal law, while street-based work is restricted in certain locations. The principle is that the law targets exploitation and other unlawful conduct rather than criminalising consensual adult sex work itself.
What England and Wales do instead
England and Wales made a stranger choice. Selling sex is legal. A number of activities surrounding it are not.
Soliciting or loitering for sex in a public place can be an offence under the Street Offences Act 1959. Soliciting someone in a street or public place to obtain sexual services is covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Keeping or managing a brothel is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and this is where the logic becomes complicated.
Premises used by more than one person for prostitution can fall within brothel law. That means two workers using the same premises can potentially bring the brothel-keeping provisions into play even where the arrangement is intended to reduce the risks of working alone. Controlling prostitution for gain and paying for sexual services from someone subjected to force or certain forms of exploitation are offences too.
Read together, these laws create an awkward tension. The sale of sexual services itself may be legal, while some of the arrangements workers might use to reduce risk — particularly working alongside another person from the same premises — can potentially fall within the criminal law.
What the evidence says, carefully
This is where it pays to be careful, because the topic is genuinely contested and both sides claim the evidence.
Research on the NSW model has been broadly favourable on health and safety. The Kirby Institute at UNSW, which studied the NSW industry for the state’s Ministry of Health, concluded that criminalisation and licensing can create difficulties for health promotion, while research has also associated decriminalised environments with better access to health services.
Support for the approach reaches well beyond Australia. Amnesty International adopted a policy backing decriminalisation in 2016. International health organisations and academic researchers have also argued that removing criminal penalties can improve access to healthcare and safer working practices, while New Zealand adopted its own decriminalised model in 2003.
It is not unanimous. Groups that favour the Nordic Model, which criminalises buyers rather than sellers, argue that decriminalising the whole trade can increase demand and the risk of trafficking. That disagreement is real, and anyone who tells you the question is settled is overstating it.
What the NSW experience does provide is several decades of evidence with which to judge the model. On health and worker safety in particular, its record has given supporters of decriminalisation a substantial case.
How Sydney works day to day
The clearest thing about the NSW model is how ordinary it looks up close.
Because advertising is permitted, much of the market is visible rather than hidden. Independent workers and businesses can advertise openly, publish information about their services and communicate directly with prospective clients.
Commercial directories such as these Sydney escort listings illustrate how openly parts of the market operate, with profiles, advertised rates and availability visible to prospective clients.
That visibility can have practical implications for safety. Someone able to communicate openly can discuss arrangements in advance, consider who they meet and make others aware of where they are working. It does not eliminate the risks associated with the industry, but it changes the environment in which those risks are managed.
The difference between the two systems has little to do with morality. It comes down to whether consensual adult sex work is pushed towards the edges of criminal law or allowed to operate within a more conventional regulatory framework.
Thirty years on, the NSW question was never whether sex work should exist. It was whether the law should push it into the dark.
England and Wales kept the sale itself legal while retaining criminal offences around significant parts of the surrounding activity. New South Wales took the more straightforward route and treated much of the industry through ordinary regulation.
On health, worker safety and the visibility of the industry, the evidence gives the NSW model a strong case.
Crave Magazine – inspiring modern lifestyles across the UK and beyond.