Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 deals with some of the most unspeakable acts that humans can commit against other people, including slavery, slavery-like conditions and people trafficking. It also deals with organ trafficking, which is an incredibly diabolical crime. Clearly these are crimes that do not occur particularly regularly in Australia, but when they do we want to make sure that the full force of the law would be brought down against perpetrators.

People who would be subject to this type of crime—be it forced labour, forced marriage, organ trafficking or harbouring a victim—would be the most vulnerable people in our society. If you were trafficked into slavery, you would generally come from very disadvantaged conditions, often overseas. The impact on victims of such ordeals would leave them traumatised for life. Clearly in modern-day Australia we have no place for this type of violence, intimidation and deprivation. As a community, we do not accept, under any circumstances, the crimes of slavery, trafficking and forced marriage. These forms of abuse have absolutely no place in Australia.

The coalition will support this bill, which seeks to strengthen and expand the ability of prosecutors and investigators to prevent and fight these crimes by introducing harsher punishment, as well as new offences for forced labour, forced marriage and trafficking of both people and organs. The coalition does not believe it is important to amend this bill. The coalition does, however, believe it is important to amend the bill if it is appropriate to do so, depending on the recommendations that are put forward by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Clearly we agree with the intent, but we just want to make sure it is drafted correctly and does not have any unintended consequences. Given the seriousness of the issues this bill deals with, the government should have waited for the findings of the Senate committee to ensure that the legislation clearly outlines and reflects our society's values on slavery and trafficking.

The amendments proposed by this bill seek to ensure that the slavery offence applies to conduct that renders a person a slave, as well as conduct involving a person who is already a slave. It extends the application of existing offences of deceptive recruiting and sexual servitude to non-sexual servitude and all forms of deceptive recruiting and increases penalties for debt bondage offences. It also amends existing definitions to broaden the range of exploitative conduct that is to be criminalised. The Crimes Act 1914 is to be amended to increase the availability of reparation orders to individual victims of Commonwealth offences. Consequential amendments are proposed to the Migration Act, Proceeds of Crime Act and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. Although the offences are described as new, most amount to definitional changes of existing offences in divisions 270 and 271 of the criminal code. The important new offences concern organ trafficking and forced marriage.

The bill will criminalise the conduct of a person who conceals, harbours or receives a victim through trafficking, slavery or a slavery-like offence.

This bill will also criminalise the conduct of a person who uses threats, deception or coercion to bring about a marriage or a marriage-like relationship. Importantly, this would also apply to third parties involved who may not be the victim but are party to a forced marriage. The forced marriage offences include strict liability for being party to a forced marriage. If the prosecution establishes that a person was forced into a marriage, the other party is presumed to be guilty of an offence unless he or she can establish a lawful excuse. This is justified on the basis that the elements needed to establish the excuse would usually lie peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused and it would be significantly more difficult for the prosecution to disprove than for the accused to establish. It is possible that the imposition of strict liability could result in injustice in particular cases and it is therefore recommended that the government's justification be closely examined.

Given the nature of forced marriage, it is often difficult to gather reliable statistics. Therefore, one can assume that the cases that we know about are probably only a portion of what might be occurring in private. These new laws will criminalise forced marriage and put in place penalties of up to seven years in jail. It is important to make sure that the appropriate punishment for these inhuman crimes is put in place to act as a sufficient deterrent. It is vital that we legislate to protect young people at risk of forced marriages, as the harmful consequences can include emotional and physical abuse, as was a loss of education and a restriction of freedoms.

This bill will also create a stand-alone offence of forced labour where a reasonable person in the position of the victim would not consider themselves free because of the use of threat, coercion or deception. The existing offences of slavery and forced servitude are to be broadened to include forced labour. This is to capture the apparently increasing incidence of slavery-like conditions outside of the sex industry. The existing definitions, which require the use of force and threats to maintain the condition of servitude, will now include the use of coercion, threat or deception. Coercion will include duress, psychological oppression and abuse of power or taking advantage of a person's vulnerability. The prohibition does not extend to conditions justified or excused by or under a law. It also does not extend to lawful detrimental action under standard relationships between employers and employees. However, the extent to which this is the case needs to be carefully examined. Phrases like 'psychological oppression' and 'taking advantage of a person's vulnerability' have a strong subjective element and it is not inconceivable that they might be alleged in an industrial relations context. Of particular concern are the strict liability offences and the expanded concept of coercion, which is open to abuse in an industrial relations context. Under this bill, the new laws criminalising forced labour will attract criminal penalties of up to 12 years imprisonment.

Importantly, this bill also creates a stand-alone offence criminalising the trafficking of a victim either to or from Australia or within Australia for the removal of his or her organ or organs. This amendment will clarify the circumstances in which an offence of organ trafficking will apply, including situations where a victim's organ is not ultimately removed. These organ-trafficking offences will ensure that Australia meets its international obligations as well as comprehensively criminalise this conduct.

Organ trafficking is currently covered, though not explicitly, by the human-trafficking provisions. The consent of the victim of the procedure will be immaterial. There appears to have been only one discontinued investigation in Australia, although it is estimated that, globally, up to 15,000 kidneys are bought and sold illegally each year. The trade is alleged to exist substantially in China, Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia and the Philippines. It is reported that patients can pay up to $200,000 for a kidney to criminal gangs who harvest these organs from vulnerable people, often for as little as $5,000.

The World Health Organization recently warned of the alarming rise in the illegal trade of human organs, reporting that an estimated 10 per cent of transplant procedures involved black-market organs and that around one new kidney is sold every hour on the black market. That is why it is so important that we legislate against this evil trade that plays on people's vulnerability and weakness. This bill will seek to punish those who exploit victims of the illegal organ-trafficking trade.

It is really difficult to imagine a more horrendous crime than that of organ trafficking, and the fact that it is on the increase should concern all members of this House. I do congratulate the government for taking these measures to make it a separate offence.

This bill will ensure that those who help to enslave or traffic people can be charged, as well as those who keep the slaves. This will broaden the ability of prosecutors and the courts to bring all those involved to justice. This bill will also establish the much-needed stand-alone offence of organ trafficking, and will also improve the availability of reparations to victims of these offences, including people trafficking and slavery. Importantly, this bill will broaden the existing sexual servitude offence to apply to all forms of servitude and deceptive recruiting offences. The penalties to be imposed range from four to 25 years imprisonment, which is broadly within the continuum under the existing provisions. It is important that they be scrutinised to ensure that penalties for trafficking are consonant with people-smuggling provisions.

The Coalition reserves the right to move amendments based on the recommendations of the relevant Senate committee inquiries. Once again, I would have thought it would have been prudent for the government to wait for that Senate committee to report, but in this instance we do not oppose the passage of this bill. Indeed, we highly support its intent, but surely it would make sense that it be properly scrutinised by the parliament through the committee process. I would urge the government to consider that in future when it does set its legislative program so that these committee inquiries can be concluded before we look at it in either chamber.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 and I think it is a bit of an indictment of a modern society that we need to even contemplate this. People trafficking is something that would seem very foreign to most of us in this place. The bill before us will amend the Crimes Act 1914 to establish new offences listed under the concept of slavery and people trafficking and extend the existing definition to include forms of exploitation that have emerged, or become increasingly common, over recent years.

The new offences that will be included under the concept of exploitation within the Australian criminal legislation include forced labour, forced marriage, harbouring a victim of organ trafficking and a number of slavery-like offences. Broadening the legal definition of slavery and people trafficking and criminalising a wide range of offences that fall under these two categories will ensure a more thorough approach, particularly in respect of the prevention, but also the detection, of these activities, as well as looking at the protection of victims within our legal system itself. It also expands the traditional understanding of the term 'capture' to involve non-physical forms of domination, including psychological oppression and misuse of a person's vulnerability. Importantly, the bill will also increase the penalties to reflect the seriousness of offences relating to enslaving and trafficking of people.

There were, as I understand it, 45 allegations of trafficking of persons reported to the Australian authorities last year. Almost all of these were adult Asian females that had come into the country for the purpose of commercial or sexual exploitation. Regrettably for those of us in New South Wales, 65 per cent of those cases related to Sydney issues. Many victims are brought to this country under false pretences or feel trapped, whether it be due to debt or debt-related issues, fear or threat. They often have difficulties in reporting their situation, given the fact of their language barriers. That does make it certainly a concern, particularly in an electorate like mine, which is the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia. In addition to that, 30 per cent of my electorate is Asian.

Project Respect, an Australian trafficking in persons advocacy group, has suggested for several years that around 1,000 women are trafficked for prostitution alone each year in this country.

According to the United Nations, in terms of a global position in the vicinity of 27 million men, women and children are either owned or denied their freedom by working in slavery-like conditions. In addition to that, 40 million people are also cited by the United Nations as being refugees. That shows the dimension of the issue. Of these 27 million, 800,000 people are trafficked across borders for the purpose of sex work, migrant workers, debt slaves, child soldiers or any other degrading purpose. Of the people trafficked across borders, not unexpectedly, 80 per cent are women and girls.

From my participation as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I am aware that human trafficking is identified as one of the fast-growing transnational crimes and one of the three most profitable transnational crimes, along with drugs and arms trafficking. The people involved in this do not do it simply because they wish to be people traffickers; they do it because there is money to be made in this business. They are prepared to sell people. People trafficking is a sad reflection on any modern society and demonstrates that many in this world do not value human life and freedom.

I commend Commissioner Tony Negus and his Australian Federal Police. I think they are doing a fantastic job in this regard. As I said, from my involvement in the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement, I am certainly aware of the work that they are doing. They are certainly making a difference in this respect through applied intelligence and detection methods. Whilst Australia is not immune to the evil of this crime, certainly when looking at many other parts of the world we remain relatively unscathed—although, as I indicated a little earlier, the number of Asian women being brought into this country for sexual exploitation certainly makes you wonder. The only reason they are coming here is that there is a market. The bill will further strengthen our ability to fight predators in this area and also protect the victims. It will ensure that we are far more efficient in monitoring and detecting illegal transaction activity and all that associated with people trafficking.

One of the new offences created in the bill includes the definition of 'forced labour', where a person does not feel the freedom to leave a place of employment due to threat, compulsion or deception. I have spoken many times in this place about the vulnerable position of migrant workers—and outworkers often find themselves in this situation. One thing that is within the Australian psyche is the issue of sweatshops. People engaged in exploitation in this area of employment are generally migrant workers. They are very, very vulnerable to exploitation due to significant language difficulties and a lack of understanding of the Australian legal system and their rights at work. This bill criminalises forced labour and establishes the punishment for predators to be as high as 12 years of incarceration.

The recent amendments to the fair work bill, which was carried in this place—although I know it was opposed by those opposite—were aimed at protecting the rights of contract workers in the textile, clothing and footwear industry. The bill was a very significant step towards ensuring that vulnerable people in this country are not exploited. Last Saturday I, along with Bich Thuy Pham, from Asian Women At Work, addressed a forum on the exploitation of workers. Particularly in south-west Sydney, people of migrant background are being forced to work in sweatshops—people who did not understand their legal rights, did not understand what is available to them and did not understand their rights at work.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:20 to 16:37

Before we attended to the division, I was indicating that, when members of the opposition voted against the provisions of the Fair Work bill, with respect to outworkers they should be conscious of the fact that those amendments, like these amendments, were not done just because they could be done; they were done because there was a market in exploiting migrant workers. Regrettably, much of that exploitation occurs in my electorate. To line up and take a political position to oppose industrial relations legislation that seeks to protect these people is tantamount to closing your eyes to the issue of exploitation itself. It is a lack of options that forces desperate people, looking for their own survival and that of their family, into working and living conditions that would deny them essential basic human rights. We should take all measures to ensure that we are not as a nation inadvertently party to the exploitation or ill treatment of individuals.

This bill broadens the definition of 'servitude' from the existing 'sexual servitude' to cover industries other than just the sex industry. People are being exploited and subjected to slavery and trafficking in a number of environments. The bill ensures tough consequences for those who assist in violating victims, even if they are not involved in enslaving them.

The need to establish a tough regime in respect of combating organ trafficking is unbelievable but necessary. Although Australia is lucky enough not to have a large number of issues of organ trafficking, this is a serious global issue and requires urgent attention. The AFP are investigating their very first case of alleged organ trafficking now as a result of the trade that is occurring in human body parts. As I said, it is a very sad reflection on modern society. Unfortunately, there are many individuals who are desperate to survive and are forced to risk their health and their lives and resort to selling organs on the black market. Many are unwilling participants in this very sad and chilling trade.

The criminals in many of these countries use people's vulnerability, with respect to deception, violence or coercion, to obtain organs from the poor, mainly in underdeveloped countries, and sell them at astronomical prices to critically ill patients in more affluent countries. According to the World Health Organisation there are about 10,000 operations annually.

The bill criminalises the use of threat or coercion with respect to forced marriage or marriage-like relationships. Being a party to such an offence would bring a new punishment exceeding seven years imprisonment. Regrettably, there are increasing reports in this country that Australian-born girls as young as 14 or 15 are being forced into unwanted marriages overseas. These girls should be entitled to the same degree of protection as any other girl—daughters or, in my case, granddaughters. It is very regrettable that we now find ourselves in a situation where we need to make laws about that, but it is necessary. Forced marriages, forced labour, the trafficking of people for sexual purposes and organ trade do not have a place in modern society. We need to accept that these are certainly realities around the globe and we should be doing everything humanly possible to prevent their occurrence in this country and to co-operate with international law enforcement to attack those who perpetrate that trade elsewhere. This bill encourages greater protection of the vulnerable and those who are exploited and increases the punishment for those who participate in taking advantage of the victims.

I would also like to use this opportunity to commend the very good work of the Josephite Counter-Trafficking Project and the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans. These two organisations do a tremendous job in assisting the victims of people-trafficking. The Josephite Counter-Trafficking Project was established by the Sisters of St Joseph in 2005 to provide spiritual and emotional support to victims of trafficking. I know because I have actually met the sisters as they have been operating in my electorate doing precisely that, particularly with young Asian women who have been trafficked in this country for sexual exploitation. The sisters closely collaborate with government agencies and non-government organisations, including the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, to establish a healing process for those who have undergone the trauma of people-trafficking. The Sisters of St Joseph have demonstrated the importance of government departments, the Australian Federal Police, NGOs and members of the wider community working together to effectively address the issue of people trafficking.

As I said from the outset, it is sad that we need to make laws in this respect. However, the crimes are certainly occurring to fulfil a market. As we know in terms of prostitution, there is a market for forced labour in this country. I commend this bill and the efforts of the government to eradicate this vile form of trade occurring within our boundaries.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012. On a point of principle, this is obviously an issue where there is an agreement between the government and the opposition. Combating and stamping out all forms of slavery and people trafficking has been a bipartisan ideal of this parliament since Federation. It was back in 1953 that Australia first became a signatory to the UN slavery convention under the prime ministership of Sir Robert Menzies. The slavery convention binds signatory countries to prevent forced labour from developing into conditions analogous to slavery and for the overall complete suppression of slavery in all its forms.

I would note, however, that the Crimes Legislation (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 has been referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. I also note that the bill has also been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The chair of the House committee, the member for Moreton, reported to the House in late June that to avoid duplication the House committee would end its inquiry. I agree that there is nothing to be gained from duplication of this inquiry, and that forcing stakeholders to double their submissions will not benefit either committee, or be in the best interests of the stakeholders. This is also true for the public hearings involved in looking into these bills.

It makes good logical sense not to run parallel inquiries in both houses. As such, I fully support allowing the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to lead the inquiry into these bills. However, I do point out that the member for Moreton suggested on 28 June this year that the House committee could not add 'value to the work of the Senate inquiries'. Sadly, we here in this House will not benefit from the value of the work of the Senate committee. The Senate inquiry has been given a completion date that will not coincide with the consideration of these bills by the House of Representatives. As such, we will not be able to fully benefit from the inquiry that is currently taking place. We must be sure that, if the inquiry is to take place in only one of the two committees, both houses can properly benefit from its findings.

One particular aspect of slavery that is covered in this bill is forced marriage. I believe this form of slavery is worth highlighting as one of the most inhumane forms of slavery of all. Unfortunately, this form of slavery still exists widely across the globe today, even here in Australia. The impact this has on those involved can lead to self-harm and even suicide. A forced marriage is a union where one or both people do not want to marry each other but are forced to, usually by family members, against their wishes. It exists in, and is a blight upon, many countries across the globe. People may be physically threatened or emotionally blackmailed into a marriage with someone they do not want to marry. This may be due to cultural, religious or financial reasons.

Regardless of the reason, the impact on those forced into a marriage remains the same. Forced marriage goes against a person's human rights. It strips people of their right to self-determination and puts them in a situation that is harmful. Many people who are forced into marrying are young, mainly young girls. Girls as young as 10 years of age are reported in countries such as the UK as being forced into marrying against their wishes. The harm that comes from forced marriage can manifest in many ways, from psychological problems such as depression and anxiety to physical abuse at the hands of the partner or the families. Many who are forced into marrying end up harming themselves, and some even take their own lives. They feel they do not have control over their own lives, and often that is worse than having no life at all.

Sadly, we have recently seen forced marriage arrive on our shores. There have been cases, apparently, where Australian girls have been taken overseas to countries where they have no legal protections and are forced to marry against their will. In many cases they are even forced to marry members of their own family. We have seen a recent ABC Four Corners program, titled 'Without consent', which cites several cases of young girls living in Australia who were forced into unwanted marriages back in Pakistan. We have also heard a recent case of a 13-year-old girl who told her teacher at a Melbourne high school that she would not be attending classes anymore because she was due to travel overseas to be married. Fortunately, the teacher contacted the Victorian Department of Human Services, who used our Family Law Act to make an application to the Federal Magistrates Court for that child's name to be placed on an airport watch list so her parents would not be able to remove her from Australia.

Last year we also saw a case, reported in the Australian, of a 16-year-old Australian girl who won the right to be placed on an airport watch list to stop her parents taking her to Lebanon for a forced marriage, only after a federal magistrate ruled that there was a psychological risk to the girl unless the court intervened to stop her from being married to a man she had met only once.

But what was particularly concerning about this case was that the young girl was actually forced to take that court action by herself and in secret from her parents. Equally disturbing was that the court said such applications are now becoming increasingly common. There was another case, also reported in the Australian, back in 2010 where a Sydney family was banned from taking their daughter, 17, to Lebanon for an arranged marriage after she had been forced to call the Australian Federal Police from home while her mother was out, saying she had been booked to fly out of Australia against her will.

This problem is also happening in the UK. We know that last year the British government, which has a special task force on forced marriage, investigated more than 1,400 cases of forced marriage, which were mainly occurring in Islamic communities. However, I do note that the Australian Muslim scholar Tariq Syed is reported as confirming that forced marriage was a cultural practice that is being applied in many different countries across Asia, regardless of their religion.

We in this parliament need to send a very clear and unambiguous statement with this bill. Forced marriage, the forcing of a young girl into a marriage she has not consented to, is not just another multicultural practice. Forced marriages are completely abhorrent to our Australian way of life and must not be accepted. We must also look at education programs to make sure that new migrants are fully informed of our laws here in Australia, which provide that a forced marriage is considered a criminal offence. We must also teach our vulnerable young girls in schools of their rights so that, if they are in a situation where they are being forced into marriage, they know our Australian police forces will support them.

In the short time remaining to me, I would like to quickly comment on the aspect of this bill which clarifies our law with regard to organ trafficking. Unfortunately, here in Australia we often think that we have a world-class organ transplant program. Although we have a very successful rate of organ transplant in Australia, we are rated only 24th in the world. In fact, Australians are only likely to receive half the number of transplants as citizens in the top countries. For example, in 2010 Spain performed 78 transplants per one million citizens, whereas in Australia we performed only 43. There has been a recent improvement, but it comes off a very low base. Because of our poor performance in being unable to match Spain for number of organ transplants, 1,000 people per year in this country miss out on transplants as a result.

We support this bill because we must have a legal framework in place so that the sorts of stories we hear about—forced marriages and organ trafficking—are a thing of the past. There must be protections in place to stop the abuse of rights and to save those who are forced into this living nightmare. The bill we are considering makes a step in this regard, and I welcome that. However, there have been some concerns with the application of strict liability. Once again, this is a case in point where members of the House would have benefited from reviewing the thorough analysis currently being prepared by senators involved in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. On balance, however, I believe the inclusion of these strict liability interpretations are justified on the basis that those authorities prosecuting those parties in a forced marriage will have more difficulty in disproving an excuse under the law than the accused will have in establishing one.

By and large, the amendments contained within the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 will be supported by the coalition. In reviewing a number of the submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, it could be anticipated that a number of amendments will be brought on to correct a number of technical errors and iron out some of the recognised complexities at a later stage in the bill's passage. Perhaps by then we will have the benefit of a completed Senate inquiry into this legislation.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 is a significant piece of legislation that provides much-needed amendments to the Criminal Code, most critically in the areas of slavery-like practices, forced marriage and organ trafficking.

This is important legislation and I am particularly proud to be speaking on this bill today. There are amendments here that are of great consequence. However, I want to talk first about the way this bill addresses the evils of forced organ donations and organ trafficking. The shortage of organ donors in Australia and worldwide has been well documented and this shortage has created an evil black market in organ trafficking. This illegal trade preys on, and exploits, the vulnerable and the poor. Although it is a criminal offence to traffic a person to remove an organ, we know that this abominable trade exists. As a vocal and passionate campaigner for organ and tissue donation, I am pleased that these amendments will make clear the specific circumstances in which an organ related offence will apply.

There are thriving criminal operations trafficking human organs because of the shortage of organ donors worldwide and the increasing demands for organs, given the medical advances in donor replacement. That is why we need more organ donors and to continue the incredible work of those who raise awareness of organ and tissue donation here in Australia. I am the current chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for Organ and Tissue Donation here in Parliament House. I set up the group when I was elected in 2010, having spent three or four years on the board of the Gift of Life Foundation here in Canberra. The member for Brisbane was deputy chair and we managed to have a few events that were highly successful in terms of raising awareness amongst our parliamentary colleagues of organ and tissue donation and also of the misinformation that exists in the community about what actually happens when people die and what actually happens in the whole process of organ and tissue donation. I think we did a pretty good job of that, and I miss the member for Brisbane being involved in the parliamentary friends group, but now look forward to her colleague, the member for Higgins, following in her footsteps.

In that time on the Gift of Life Foundation board, I was involved in a major transformation and reform of organ and tissue donation here in Australia. The former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, invested $150 million in completely revamping the way that Australia manages organ and tissue donation, and I was involved in those really early days of establishing what it meant and how it was going to work, and most importantly, on the communication and education programs. That $150 million has gone into a range of activities in terms of streamlining the process, providing clinicians on site and boosting the ability of us to conduct transplants. As a former speaker mentioned, Australia is a world leader in organ and tissue donation transplants; we are the world's best practice. Unfortunately, we have significantly low numbers of people donating their organs and tissues, and one of the major elements of that investment in the $150 million, apart from the streamlining of the processes and enhancing the medical teams and abilities, was conducting significant and broad-reaching education and community communication programs.

We have seen two tranches of those programs roll out. One is the It's OK program, but the most recent one is about the fact that you need to have the conversation with your family to let them know your intentions if you do want to become an organ and tissue donor. It is vitally important because, unfortunately, once you have passed on, families can overturn your decision. So it is really important that you let them know that you are very strongly committed to being an organ and tissue donor and that you want those wishes fulfilled once you have passed on. That is vitally important.

I know, as a result of that campaign and also from the work that we have done here in Canberra, that a number of school students throughout Canberra—particularly from schools that have been involved in the Terry Connolly walk we do around the lake every year to celebrate organ and tissue donation week—have been having conversations with their parents about making their intentions clear and also discussing what their parents want to do.

So the students, our young Australians, are in a way actually 'managing up' this conversation on organ and tissue donation. It is vitally important, and it would be nice if it were a two-way conversation—with our children having the conversation with their parents and the parents having the conversation with their children.

Once you have passed on, it is really up to the family to make the decision, so you may need to make your intentions clear that you want to be an organ and tissue donor. I really applaud recent moves by the New South Wales government. There has been a great deal of confusion as a result of what actually constitutes you signifying your intention. Apart from having the conversation, a lot of people have cards that they get from Medicare. In New South Wales they have had for many, many years, I understand, a system whereby when you get your driver's licence you can sign up to be an organ and tissue donor. People were under the impression that they had actually given consent to be an organ and tissue donor through their New South Wales licence, but it had no real force. That is why we keep coming back to the need to have the conversation with members of your family and let your intentions be known.

We have a very strong community here that is very active in organ and tissue donation and raising awareness about it. As I mentioned before, Terry Connolly, who was a former judge here and a former Attorney-General in the ACT, unfortunately died riding up Red Hill when he was only 50, and he donated his corneas. It was a significant donation and one that really resonated with the community and raised awareness amongst the legal community as well as other parts of the Public Service and the school community that I just highlighted.

I have seen reports suggesting that up to 10 per cent of kidney transplants are carried out with illegally obtained kidneys. Organs Watch, an organisation that monitors the illegal traffic of organs, has estimated that 15,000 to 20,000 illegally-trafficked-kidney operations occur each year. That is a significant number. Obviously the most effective way to end the unlawful trade in organs is to drastically increase the number of people leaving their organs for donation. However, as we work towards this goal, we must also provide the tools to prevent the trafficking of illegally obtained organs.

The previous speaker's comments on organ and tissue donation are to be applauded. But the reason that Spain is such a world leader in terms of organ and tissue donation is that they have a very different system to ours. So, in a way, it is comparing apples and oranges. That said, compared to other countries that have a similar system to Australia, we are still way behind. So we do need to make significant improvements. We are improving as a result of the reform program we introduced, but we still need to do a lot more.

The measures contained in this bill provide law enforcement agencies with the necessary mechanisms to investigate and prosecute crimes such as organ trafficking and other exploitative actions. We know that as enforcement agencies begin to close loopholes and prosecute criminal behaviour, people engaged in organ trafficking, as well as those involved in barbaric, slavery-like practices, will look for ways to escape detection. After widespread consultation, the government is now introducing amendments that seek to establish new offences and extend the application of existing offences, along with measures designed to amend existing definitions that address other forms of coercion and oppression. The stand-alone offence of organ trafficking will clarify the circumstances in which an organ related offence will apply.

Another very important component of these amendments is the establishment of new offences dealing with forced marriage. We have been made aware that forced marriage does sometimes occur in Australia and we know this is not always reported. That is why specific criminalisation of this practice is necessary. It must be stressed that these amendments in no way target consensual religious or cultural marriages. These amendments talk about 'forced' marriages. For me, as a woman, I think slavery and forced marriages are probably my worst nightmare.

It is one of those things where, if my nieces or my godchildren travel overseas, I am always worried sick about something—more the slavery than anything else—like that happening. I know that is an extreme reaction to one of my nieces or godchildren travelling overseas, but it is one of my worst nightmares. We see those movies where women are corralled into packing cases, ready to be farmed off as sex slaves or slaves of other kinds. It is a woman's worst nightmare; hence my compulsion to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 today. As a woman, the thought of that actually happening is my greatest fear. I really fear for it happening to my godchildren and my nieces.

Repression of women and taking away their freedom is the denial of the most basic human right. With respect to the forced marriage issue, so too is the right to choose a partner and the right to marry, free from compulsion and intimidation. So many women throughout the world do not share the same rights that we have in Australia, rights that we take for granted.

In closing, another important amendment contained in this bill provides clarification of issues around the use of consent as a defence. We are talking here about truly despicable and heinous crimes, including suppressing someone's free will and their ability to make their own decisions. The amendments to this bill provide clarification so that defendants cannot escape liability if their actions lead to a victim acquiescing to his or her treatment.

The bill further addresses another and related crime, that of debt bondage. The government recognises that current penalties do not adequately indicate how serious the offence of debt bondage really is. There are measures here that indicate the seriousness of offences related to debt bondage, a practice we know can result in slavery-like practices and the suppression of basic rights and freedoms, particularly for women.

Overall, the amendments contained in this bill are designed to address both the overt and more subtle forms of coercion and exploitation, including psychological oppression and the abuse of power or a person's vulnerability. The amendments in this bill will protect the most vulnerable and will enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to prosecute those who commit these most serious crimes. I commend the bill to the House.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to make a contribution to the debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012. I just want to add my comments to the comments of the previous speakers, including those of the member for Canberra.

The bill was introduced into the House by the Attorney-General, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, on 30 May 2012. Most people seem to think of slavery as some prehistoric happening that comes from another era, something that is a blight on our history and something that should be long forgotten. We associate it with the 19th century and before and with the shameful actions of a bygone era. Thankfully, the more traditional forms of slavery have been abolished and are to be seen no more. But, sadly, some forms of slavery, mainly forced labour, forced marriage and organ trafficking still exist. As the Attorney said in her second reading speech:

A common factor of contemporary slavery and trafficking—from forced labour and forced marriage to organ trafficking—is the misuse and abuse of power. And such an abuse has no place here in Australia.

I want to add my comments to those of the member for Canberra. I enjoyed working with her for a limited time on the Parliamentary Friendship Group for Organ and Tissue Donation here in parliament. I also want to commend her on her work previously on DonateLife. Previously, before coming to this place, I was an ambassador for the AMA in Queensland for raising awareness of organ donation. We have come a long way. There have been a number of very successful campaigns. The member for Canberra spoke about the 'It's OK' campaign, which has been running quite successfully, and about having the conversation. The conversation is a difficult thing to have, but more and more people are talking to their loved ones and, in recent times, we have definitely seen an increase in the number of organ donorship rates.

Where it does fall apart, however, is when the family has to make the decision, and sometimes the family can decide that they do not want to proceed. More coordination also needs to be done in hospitals to make sure that the right people are there to speak to the family, particularly at this very delicate and vulnerable time—people who are trained on how to speak to the family and how to deal humanely and compassionately with them when the moment of donation occurs.

So a lot of work has been done there, but I believe there is still a lot more work to be done, particularly in the coordination stage in hospitals and on making sure that GPs also have an active role to play. GPs are the most trusted people that members of the community go to and I think that they can play a more active role in increasing awareness and making sure that they run on-the-ground campaigns to encourage their patients to sign up, to fill out the forms, and to make sure that they do have the conversation with their loved ones.

All of the speakers in this debate have spoken about the bill. The coalition is largely supportive of this bill. However, we reserve our right to move amendments in the other place depending on the outcome of the committee inquiries around the bill.

The bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to insert offences of forced labour, forced marriage, organ trafficking and harbouring a victim. The amendments proposed by this bill seek to ensure that the slavery offence applies to conduct which renders a person a slave, as well as conduct which involves a person who is already a slave. It extends the application of existing offences of deceptive recruiting and sexual servitude to non-sexual servitude and all forms of deceptive recruiting—and, sadly, that is occurring all over the world at the moment: people are promised lucrative jobs only to find that they are fronts for sexual servitude. The bill also increases penalties for debt bondage offences. It also amends existing definitions to broaden the range of exploitative conduct that is to be criminalised.

The Crimes Act 1914 is to be amended to increase the availability of reparation orders to individual victims of Commonwealth offences, and consequential amendments are proposed to the Migration Act 1958, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. Although the offences are described as new, most amount to definitional changes to existing offences in divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code. The important new offences concern organ trafficking and forced marriage.

Organ trafficking is currently covered, though not so explicitly, by the human trafficking provisions. These amendments are not controversial, and it is hoped that the prosecutions will be extremely rare. The consent of a victim of a procedure will be immaterial. There appears to be only one organ trafficking investigation in Australia, though it has been estimated that there are from 15,000 to 20,000 kidneys bought and sold illegally each year. The trade is much more substantial in countries such as China, Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia and the Philippines.

The existing offences of slavery and forced servitude are to be broadened to include forced labour rather than just sexual servitude. That is apparently to capture the increasing incidence of slavery-like conditions outside the sex industry. It is widely reported that there has been an increase of these slavery-like conditions in areas such as hospitality. The existing definitions, which require the use of force and threats to maintain the condition of servitude, will now include the use of coercion, threat or deception, and coercion includes duress, psychological oppression, abuse of power or taking advantage of a person's vulnerability.

As to the abuse of power—and the member for Canberra spoke about this—our power is the most fundamental right that we have. When we lose our power, we are in quite a desperate situation. Everyone should have the ability to control his or her destiny.

The prohibition does not extend to conditions justified or excused by or under a law. The penalties imposed will range from four years to 25 years imprisonment, which we believe is a good thing. They are within the continuum under the existing provisions.

It is recommended, however, that they be scrutinised to ensure that penalties for trafficking are consistent with people-smuggling provisions.

When we are dealing with issues such as forced marriage, it becomes difficult because many religious cultures, unfortunately, see it as acceptable; and many cultures see the marriage of a 12- or 13-year-old as acceptable. However, there is one underlying principle: it is not acceptable in this country. In their submission to the committee, the Migration Institute of Australia said:

The victims of such offences are often vulnerable, with limited English language skills and anxiety over their migration status which is often uncertain. They fear the perpetrators, the criminal justice system and deportation. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that victims of forced marriage may also be subject to further exploitation as they may be used to sponsor a person to come into Australia.

The Settlement Council of Australia also provided a submission to the committee. In their submission they said that they supported the proposed legislation because they believe that, by broadening the range of exploitative behaviour covered and by increasing the penalties imposed on offenders and compensation offered to victims, those vulnerable in the migrant and refugee communities will be better protected.

It is very pleasing to see a consensus amongst all of the stakeholders on this bill, and they make some very good points in their submissions. The new penalties for the new offences, and the increases in existing penalties, are, in my view, entirely appropriate and, hopefully, will act as a sufficient deterrent for people thinking of committing these crimes.

In conclusion, the coalition fully support the intent of the bill. As I said earlier, we reserve our right to make some amendments, again depending on the outcomes of the committee inquiry. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, like the previous speaker, am very pleased to rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012. Australia first put together its national strategy on slavery and slavery-like conditions in 2003, so this bill has been a while coming. But it is a very, very important bill—since 2003 the ways that some very evil people in this world have found to exploit others has no doubt changed. Today the great majority of victims of people trafficking identified in Australia have been trafficked for exploitation within the commercial sex industry. That is probably, for many of us, the way we think of slavery. However, over the past two years Australian authorities have identified a number of men and women who have been trafficked for exploitation in other industry sectors. At the same time, investigations have indicated changes in the techniques used by traffickers to adapt to law enforcement activity and changes in migration regulations.

The nature of people trafficking varies from region to region and from country to country. In its most visible form, it usually involves women and children trafficked for sexual exploitation. But around the world we can find other examples of people being trafficked for other purposes, including forced labour in a range of industries—construction, forestry, mining, domestic and sweatshop labour and hospitality—illicit adoption, street begging, forced recruitment into the military or armed forces, the harvesting of body organs and, as we have heard, forced marriage.

People trafficking occurs across international borders but it also occurs within nations. A range of people may be involved in the trafficking process. The stories that we as Australians have seen far too often on various current affairs programs which show us the plight of some of the people who have been traded into the sex industry are appalling. But long before it gets to that stage, there are many people involved in the trafficking process, including those engaged in the initial recruitment, those that arrange transportation and those that arrange false documentation. There may also be a broker, a brothel owner, a factory supervisor or a household head—somebody who directly exploits trafficked people.

Traffickers commonly recruit their victims by appealing to their hopes, or that of their families, for a better life or escape from economic or social distress. Often there are threats used; force or abduction can be used. Trafficking can occur whether people move by legal or illegal means. Victims of trafficking are not always physically detained. The level of control and the nature of the control may vary. They may employ a number of ways of preventing their victims from escaping, including debt bondage, intimidation, physical or sexual violence against the victim themselves or against family members, detention, threat of denunciation to migration authorities and withholding of personal identity documents, including passports.

Since Australia's whole-of-government anti-people-trafficking strategy was established in 2003, the majority of identified victims have been found to be in the legal and illegal sex industry. But we are seeing significant changes to that in Australia and around the world, and it is appropriate that we have now moved to update our laws, expand the range of definitions and broaden the scope of the laws to people who assist in setting up this appalling trade.

This bill will amend the Criminal Code to establish new offences of forced labour, forced marriage, harbouring a victim and organ trafficking. It will broaden the definition of exploitation to include a range of slavery-like practices. It will extend the application of existing offences of deceptive recruiting and sexual servitude to apply to all forms of servitude and deceptive recruiting. It will ensure that the slavery offence applies to conduct which reduces a person to slavery as well as conduct involving a person who is already a slave.

It will amend the existing definitions of exploitation to include a range of slavery-like practices and to capture more subtle forms of coercion, including psychological oppression and the abuse of power and a person's vulnerability. It will increase the penalties applicable to the existing debt bondage offences to ensure they adequately reflect the relative seriousness of the offences.

At the community cabinet in Parramatta around Easter time, the Prime Minister was asked a question about this policy by one of the women in the audience who is heavily involved in her community—a woman I know quite well. It was interesting that, of all the issues that could have been raised at that community cabinet, this was the one that that particular community wanted to raise, particularly the issue of forced marriage. When you have community leaders in one community or another choosing that topic to raise, you know there are stories going on in our communities that most of us are not aware of.

She talked to me later. She talked of the difficulty we would find in so many of the grey cultural areas in her community and in others. There is no doubt—from talking to that woman and a number of others—about the commitment of the women in that community to protect vulnerable girls and women from forced marriage. I am pleased that we are making these changes to the law in support of that community. I know, as they do—and as the government knows—that this is not an easy task. The legislation has to cover a range of offences, and applying it will cause us to find more grey areas. There is no doubt that this legislation will be amended over time, as our communities get more familiar with their protections and the ways they can protect themselves and other members of their community from this appalling conduct.

As perpetrators become increasingly aware of investigative and prosecutorial techniques, they change their modes of operation accordingly. It is essential that we regularly review the offences against slavery and people trafficking to ensure they are responsive to emerging trends. As I said, I have no doubt that, as our communities start to use these laws more fully, we will find a whole range of things in our communities that we will wish to respond to. The measures in this bill are intended to ensure our law enforcement agencies have the appropriate tools to investigate and prosecute the broadest range of exploitative behaviour.

The bill is a result of really widespread public consultation. We released two discussion papers on slavery, people-trafficking and forced marriage and also sought submissions on an exposure draft of the bill. Responses to those consultations revealed broad support for the measures proposed by the bill.

Forced labour is currently criminalised where it is connected to the offence of people-trafficking, but it is not criminalised where it is not connected to the events of people-trafficking. This bill changes that to create a stand-alone offence that would ensure that, in addition to the prosecution of a trafficker, labour exploitation at the place of destination could also be prosecuted.

Forced marriage is, again, a very important area. Following reports that forced marriage is occurring in Australia but is underreported, specific criminalisation of this practice is warranted. The forced marriage offences would criminalise the actions of a person who uses coercion, threat or deception to cause another person to enter a marriage against his or her will or a person who is a party to but not a victim of a forced marriage. The criminalisation of forced marriage is not intended to target consensual religious or cultural marriages. It is intended, absolutely, to target cases where one party or the other does not feel they have a choice, that they do not feel that they are entering into a marriage of their own free will.

Harbouring a victim is also dealt with by this bill. The definition of trafficking in persons under the trafficking protocol encompasses the criminal conduct of individuals who are involved in the harbouring or receipt of persons. The proposed harbouring offences would fulfil our obligations under the trafficking protocol by targeting the conduct of persons who assist another person in their slavery and trafficking activities. Regarding the many people who are involved in setting up and managing the trafficking of human beings, this section specifically targets people who assist a third party—again, a very important improvement.

We have also noted that there is a rise in the number of individuals identified as being exploited in industries other than the sex industry—for example, domestic or hospitality industries. It is important that these provisions are recast so that they apply broadly to situations of exploitation in all industries. We can see examples in my community and others that I have been made aware of—and in some cases I have tried to assist—where people feel that they must work under incredibly poor conditions. They have had their passports seized and in many cases feel that if they complained to me or anyone else they would be instantly deported. In our community now we have people who are working for either no money or very little money under appalling conditions and under fear of dramatic repercussions if they complain. I have been at mobile offices in my electorate where people have told me of their circumstances but were not game to tell me the name of their employer or their own name. So I am well aware that we have people in our communities who are well and truly being exploited in this way.

The existing penalties for debt bondage are not sufficient to reflect the relative seriousness of debt bondage offences. Enforcement of a debt is one of the most significant factors pointing to the exercise of ownership over another person—that is, slavery. The proposed higher penalties would reflect the seriousness of the offences and have the effect of making them capable of being included as alternative counts on indictment—again, a very important improvement. We know now that in the people-trafficking crime syndicates, for example, there are many people who are effectively moved from one country to another and they or their families remain in debt bondage until the debts are paid off. They are appalling circumstances for a person to be in—not circumstances that any of us should accept. I am really pleased to see that the existing penalties have been raised.

The situation of many victims in Australia does not conform to the popular image of people-trafficking and slavery-like practices involving abduction, violence and physical restraint. In a lot of cases they tend to involve more subtle forms of coercion. The amended definition of a threat in this bill includes threat of coercion.

Coercion would be defined to include physical and non-physical elements, including psychological oppression, abuse of power or taking advantage of a person's vulnerability.

This is an important bill. It has been on its way since 2003. Since then, there have been many new ways for people to be exploited around the world, and we are seeing changes in the way that people are exploited in Australia. Again, I am incredibly pleased to be speaking to the bill. I commend it to the House, and I am very pleased to see that there is genuine bipartisan support for this action.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012, which offers amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995, to include offences associated with forced labour, forced marriage, organ trafficking and harbouring a victim.

We are fortunate in Australia that slavery, trafficking and associated crimes are not common. It remains beholden to this parliament, however, to strive to protect the vulnerable people in our society from abuse, irrespective of their gender, age, socioeconomic background or ethnic identity. These crimes are unacceptable in any modern, progressive state, and the legislative response of the Australian parliament must firmly assert the complete rejection of these behaviours by Australian society.

I recently met with two constituents in my electorate, Mrs Helen Levingstone and Mrs Elizabeth Sorrell, who are activists with the Stop the Traffik action group. Like many other members of my electorate, Helen and Elizabeth were tremendously concerned that the issue of human trafficking, slavery and exploitation be proactively addressed by this House, and were keen to impress upon me their belief that it is the responsibility of all Australians to be vigilant defenders of the basic human rights diminished by slavery and slavery-like conditions.

This bill aims to clarify the nature, circumstances and conditions of slavery and slavery-like conditions, inclusive of forced marriage, labour and organ trafficking. Expanded prosecution and investigative powers contained in the legislation will assist the efforts of Commonwealth law enforcement and legal agencies, seeking to fight these crimes. Similarly, appropriately harsh penalties will serve as a deterrent to those seeking to abuse and manipulate others.

The bill proposes to amend the Crimes Act 1914 to increase the availability of reparation orders to victims of Commonwealth offences and proposes consequential amendments to the Migration Act 1958, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Telecommunication (Interception and Access) Act 1979.

Although the coalition supports the principles established in this bill the amendments to its current form may be necessary, and this parliament should await the review and recommendations of the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. Wiser counsel and reflection would have brought this government to realise that the seriousness of both the issues that this bill deals with and the tough measures that it introduces, necessitated a pause until the findings of both committees could be reported and, if necessary, amendments made to this bill, rather than pushing forward, as they do now, to introduce this bill through this House before these processes have concluded.

Thematically, this bill addresses many very serious issues and its purpose is commendable. Critically, the proposed amendments recognise the deeply complex nature of exploitative relationships between the perpetrators who create, and the victims of, slavery or slavery-like conditions. These interactions often occur quietly, unnoticed by even the nearest neighbours, and may involve established patterns of intimidation and domination. This bill will criminalise the concealment, harbouring or trafficking of victims of slavery or slavery-like conditions.

Importantly, these amendments will also outlaw associated behaviours intimately connected to forced marriages, criminalising the use of threats, deception or coercion to bring about marriage or a marriage-like relationship. Whilst it is tremendously important that Australia's body of legislation clearly prohibits the use of duress, force or intimidation to bring about marriage or a marriage-like relationship, it is equally important that legislation, including this bill, carefully and explicitly identifies specific offences with close consideration of the possible impact of the law in question. With this in mind, I draw the House's attention to subsection 2 of section 270.7B of the bill. This subsection deals with forced marriage offences and states:

(2) A person commits an offence if:

     (a) the person is a party to a marriage (within the meaning of section 270.7A); and

(b) the marriage is a forced marriage; and

(c) the person is not a victim of the forced marriage.

According to subsection (4) of the same section, 'Subsection (2) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse' for entering into the marriage. The notes attached to this subsection, however, place a reverse onus upon the accused to prove their own innocence, stating:

A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4).

The second party to a marriage, where the first is found to have been forced into the marriage, is therefore presumed to be guilty of a very serious criminal offence unless he or she can establish evidentiary proof otherwise. Surely this represents a tremendously troubling precedent that sits very uncomfortably within our legal system.

Given the proposed lengthy custodial sentences of up to and including seven years, more careful considerable of the casual allocations of onuses of proof should have been undertaken by this government. More importantly, this government should have waited until after the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the House of Representatives Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs had thoroughly investigated and expertly reviewed the proposed legislation. This portion of the legislation must be very carefully examined and the possible and long-term repercussions of its implication explored.

This bill proposes to created several standalone offences that criminalise behaviours or acts associated with the creation and promotion of slavery or slavery-like conditions. Organ trafficking is a disturbingly frequent internationally problematic issue. Many thousands of organs are bought in the black market every year, and the trade is believed to be particularly prolific in areas of North Africa, South America, China and the Asia Pacific. Organs may be sold for several hundred thousands of dollars by the criminal enterprises that sustain this trade—the victims receiving only a very small proportion of these sums in return for their body parts.

It is estimated by the World Health Organization that one in 10 transplant procedures involve organs obtained on the black market—a figure that continues to rise rapidly. The revolting exploitation of vulnerable people by organ traders is truly horrific, most commonly occurring in impoverished areas where the poor are easy prey to mercenary butchers. The consent or refusal of victims to participate is immaterial. The harvesting of human organs for sale is a terrible crime against humanity. This bill will create a standalone offence, criminalising the traffic of a victim to or within Australia for the removal of organs.

This bill will also create a standalone offence for forced labour, with explicit reference to conditions in which a reasonable person in the position of the victim would not consider themselves free because of the use of threat, coercion or deception. These amendments will clarify and expand existing definitions that require the use of force and threats to maintain the condition of servitude. The use of duress, psychological oppression, abuse of power and exploitation of vulnerability will now be held to denote the use of coercion.

The seriousness of these offences will be recognised by penalties that include custodial sentences of up to 12 years. Whilst the principles that guide this portion of the proposed amendment are commendable and indeed are an important progressive legislative step, it is important that the appropriate review of the bill's language, direction and specified intent be undertaken. Portions of the bill are open to particularly broad interpretation and equally broad and unspecified context. How, without further clarification, is one to identify what specific behaviour and circumstances would denote that a party was taking advantage of a person's vulnerability?

It is not reasonable to expect this House to pass such vague terminologies into law without far more careful consideration of the potential repercussions in the courts. Once again, the government should have waited until after the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs had thoroughly reviewed the bill's contents, implications and practical enforcement issues.

This bill will clarify and expand existing legislative frameworks which have been developed with the express purpose of protecting vulnerable people in Australia and overseas against exploitation. Stand-alone offences are here created, explicitly criminalising organ trafficking and forced labour. Existing legislation is broadened in this bill to include all forms of servitude and deceptive enticement, in addition to existing sexual servitude offences. Forced marriage is an increasingly global issue and it is entirely appropriate that this House support legislation that seeks to combat such a destructive trend and provides explicit legal protections for people vulnerable to exploitation, be it by a stranger, a family member or a loved one.

The penalties this bill will impose for all these offences are heavy, carrying the possibility of substantial jail time, but this reflects the seriousness of these crimes. This bill has much to commend it and marks a progressive step in the evolution of the collective Australian legislative body. The coalition, however, is certain that such important legislation must be the subject of very careful review and will reserve the right to move amendments based on the recommendations of both Senate and House of Representatives committees.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012. I do so after thorough consultation with a number of my constituents who have outlined to me their views on the issues of people trafficking and slavery. From the outset, I would also like to recognise the very important work of a number of organisations, including that of the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans, ACRATH; and Catalyst, which is a faith based organisation which operates in my electorate. Both of these groups have led the way on addressing the issues of human trafficking and slavery, particularly in raising awareness at a local level.

In speaking on this bill I would like to specifically address three aspects: the broadening of the definition of 'exploitation', strengthening the capability of prosecutors to combat people trafficking, and improving the availability of reparations to victims of people-trafficking. The bill will amend divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code and section 21B of the Crimes Act to reflect the ever-changing nature of these issues and expand the definition of 'exploitation'.

As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, this bill will also strengthen and expand the capability of investigators and prosecutors to combat people-trafficking and slavery, in particular for the purpose of labour exploitation, and to facilitate the prosecution of these offences. Finally, this bill will also improve the availability of reparations to individual victims of people smuggling, including people-trafficking.

I would now like to turn to the rationale for this bill. It is estimated that there are up to 27 million slaves in the world today. It is a shocking statistic in the year 2012. This is an issue that, contrary to what some may think, is not an ancient evil but a contemporary problem with very real and tragic consequences, both overseas and in our own backyard, as exposed, for example, in the case of the Queen and Tang, 2008.

The Australian Federal Police have also conducted 300 investigations into human trafficking and slavery offences between 2004 and 2011, resulting in 13 convictions. The US State Department estimates that some 800,000 victims are trafficked across international borders every year, with millions more enslaved in their own countries.

So this is a vital piece of legislation that recognises that these issues do not exist in a vacuum but rather are dynamic and ever-changing. Consequently, the legislation must reflect this.

I would like to turn to the broadening of the definition of exploitation to include a range of slavery-like practices. This legislation ensures a more comprehensive response to these crimes. As outlined by Fiona David from the Australian Institute of Criminology, key debates still coalesce around issues including the realities of transnational migration for work, the difficulties of defining and proving key concepts such as exploitation and sexual violence, and the challenges of giving due respect to the agency of individuals in situations where choice is heavily constrained.

If the United States Trafficking Victims Protection Act 2000, which was designed to achieve similar outcomes to this bill, tells us anything, it is that a narrow understanding of trafficking and exploitation makes for ineffective and oversimplified legislative solutions. It is therefore crucial that we do not make the mistake of narrowly interpreting this complex set of issues.

It is also essential that we recognise that trafficking is not only a matter of sexual exploitation but also of labour exploitation. As outlined by the Australian Human Rights Commission, while Australia has so far focused on trafficking for sexual exploitation, a key issue at the recent national roundtable on people trafficking was how Australia could improve its response to the emerging issue of labour trafficking. This is becoming increasingly important in a time of labour shortage. Migrant workers may find themselves in debt bondage arrangements in a range of different industries, with little or no control over their conditions of work. Their passports may be withheld. They may be subjected to physical or psychological abuse. This is not just happening in the sex industry, it is happening in other industries too. So, by broadening the definition of exploitation and inserting new offences and provisions in the Criminal Code, we will ensure a more thorough and comprehensive response to what is a dynamic and complex set of issues.

I would like to turn to strengthening the capacity to prosecute. The bill also strengthens the mechanisms available to prosecute people and organisations who commit these prescribed crimes. As highlighted by Bernadette McSherry from Monash University:

Those who are victims of labour-trafficking and slavery are largely invisible, tend to work in isolation, often have limited proficiency in English and limited interaction with the general populace and are thus usually voiceless and vulnerable. If the purpose of the criminal law is taken to be not only to punish moral wrongs; but also to preserve and encourage social welfare, then forced labour, slavery and debt bondage for both sexual as well as other services should be subject to investigation and prosecution.

By amending the existing provisions in divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code, this bill will increase the penalties for the base and aggravated offences of debt bondage from 12 months and two years imprisonment respectively to four years and seven years imprisonment. These appropriate changes reflect the serious nature of these crimes and will also have the effect of making them indictable offences capable of being included as alternative counts on indictment. As outlined by the Attorney-General in her second reading speech, this bill will protect our society's most vulnerable people: the women and children—and, at times, men—who fall victim to this abhorrent trade.

My recent joy at becoming a mother has particularly led me to focus on the welfare of young girls and children generally who are victims of slavery and slavery-like conditions. Children are often employed and exploited because, compared to adults, they are obviously more vulnerable, are cheaper to hire and are less likely to demand higher wages or better working conditions. We see the worst of this around the world—for example, in some cases, in West African cocoa production; in Central European cotton farms; and in the Middle East and in our own region. This government is committed to helping developing countries address the main causes of unfair child labour practices through its work with UNICEF. By reducing the debt burden of poor families and providing better access to primary education for children throughout the world, we are helping to limit the reasons why children are exploited.

In my electorate of Greenway there has been very strong support for the strengthening of these laws regarding people-trafficking from community organisations, religious groups and individuals. On 19 July I had the pleasure of spending some time with three of my constituents from the faith based organisation Catalyst, Jed Evans, Daniel Tuckwell and Greg Wood, who outlined to me the stark reality of what is a tragic trade.

They detailed for me the heinous situations experienced in Uzbekistan, for example, where children are often forced from school to pick cotton and the crops use some of the very highest levels of pesticide, which permeate and poison the children at such a vulnerable age, and in West Africa, where children experience extreme abuse while working on some cocoa farms. These are the realities of the slave trade today. I would like to acknowledge the great work of Catalyst on shedding light on these issues and thank them for their endeavours to end slavery.

On 12 June and as recently as this afternoon, I spent some time with Sister Noelene Simmons from the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans to specifically discuss this legislation. I note that ACRATH participated in the extensive public consultations undertaken in developing this bill and was recognised by the Attorney-General as providing valuable input in shaping and refining the reforms. ACRATH is committed to the wellbeing of people trafficked into Australia, whether for sex work or for work in other industries, for organ trafficking or for forced marriage. I would like to put on record the support of ACRATH for this legislation. In particular, they are pleased to see the forced and servile marriage aspects included in this bill. I also note that ACRATH believes more needs to be done with respect to the availability of reparations to victims of these offences, and this is something I will continue to advocate for in this place.

I would particularly like to note that ACRATH gave some very practical examples of antislavery provisions and, in particular, brought forced marriages to the fore. They highlighted to me that this does continue to occur in a number of countries, including a number of African nations where it is not necessarily religiously based but, rather, culturally based. It is a growing concern. They highlighted to me this afternoon the very practical issue that government departments need to move quickly where there is a suspicion of forced marriage. They gave me an example of a 16-year-old girl who was quite articulate but was taken overseas. Her passport was withheld from her and the struggle was about how to get her back into this country. As they pointed out, this is unfortunately an issue which is so new on the radar for many institutions that it is insufficiently understood. Although they highlighted the cooperation that they received in this particular case from the Attorney-General's Department, the big practical issue is the money to bring these girls back to Australia. They highlighted to me how the AFP is very alive to the issue but that there needs to be a better understanding generally by government agencies about these specific circumstances. They further highlighted to me how it is important when these legislative changes go through for the law to be backed with resources to increase the awareness of forced marriage. An example they gave was prospective couples being interviewed separately as a way of unearthing problems through the immigration system. Another practical step forward may be for GPs to have leaflets in their surgery providing the educational imperative that is necessary for people who need to understand that they have support and specific rights.

I commend the Attorney-General, to whom I made representations some months ago on the issue of country of origin and ensuring that slavery practices are monitored for goods that are imported into Australia—that there is some sort of certification process. A number of organisations have been at the forefront of ensuring that our retailers and manufacturers in Australia that use inputs from overseas product are encouraged to have some form of certification that their product is slavery-free. As recently as this afternoon I noted that Nestle is apparently going to have their product certified by the end of the year. Australia is one of the first countries in which this is being done. They have specifically said it is due to pressure from organisations such as Stop the Traffik in Australia that this is able to be done.

Both ACRATH and Catalyst have asked that the government ensure that the supply chain of goods brought into Australia is slave-free. As I have mentioned, it is something I have raised with the Attorney-General and the foreign minister, but I also plan to raise the issue of the procurement of goods with the finance minister. I believe the community I represent and the wider Australian community want to know where goods are sourced and they want to understand the conditions in which the sourcing takes place, so I thank organisations like ACRATH for all their hard work in this area.

Australia is party to a number of international treaties which are aimed at eradicating labour exploitation and protecting children's rights, including the Slavery Convention and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. Australia has also ratified a number of International Labour Organisation conventions. These instruments, together with this legislation, highlight Australia's very strong commitment to ending human trafficking and exploitation.

This government understands that factors such as poverty, lack of employment and income generating opportunities and, often, a lack of education make people vulnerable to exploitation. That is why Australia's aid program directly addresses these factors through the Millennium Development Goals. Our aid program also funds specific programs aimed at combating trafficking and slavery, including the Tripartite Action to Protect Migrant Workers within and from the Greater Mekong Sub-region from Labour Exploitation, which is a five-year program being implemented by the ILO to reduce the exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers and their families in the Greater Mekong subregion.

I note again that labour exploitation is an issue of serious importance to many decent local people living in my electorate. It may not be the most glamorous topic or receive the most coverage in our mainstream media, but it is certainly very important, and it has been highlighted by the large number of representations I have received. I thank the Attorney-General in particular for her work on the issue and commend the bill to the House.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to have the opportunity to speak on bills on which there is genuine bipartisan support. I note that there have been some concerns raised about the reporting times of the House and the Senate committees which are looking into the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012. But I think that, by the time this bill passes through to the Senate, the reports will be in, and amendments can always be made there.

Being ex-AFP and a former member of the military police, I have always had an interest in the issues covered by the bill, and that is why I am speaking on it today. Among the measures in the bill are some changes in definition. The bill also specifies some new offences. I am going to concentrate tonight on the new offences. I start with organ trafficking, which we have heard quite a bit about in recent times. References have been made by other speakers to the case of an elderly lady with kidney problems who is being prosecuted for bringing a young girl from the Philippines to Australia for organ harvesting. Organ harvesting is a terrible thing. Legislation needs to be used to send a very clear message to those who might contemplate such action. The organ trafficking industry is said to be worth well over $200 million a year, and some 15,000 kidneys are bought and sold each year. This trade is alleged to occur largely in countries such as China, Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia and the Philippines. In those countries, human life is not valued quite as highly as it is here. There are similarities between organ trafficking and the exploitation of children—through, for example, child pornography—in that, in such countries, people see that there is money to be made by exploiting other people, as in the case of this young woman from the Philippines. Those who live in First World countries such as Australia are, as we have seen, willing to buy into the organ trafficking trade, and through the internet they can take advantage of somebody, whether through child pornography produced overseas and bought by Australians or by the procurement of organs from an unwitting person or a person who thinks that they can generate some income out of organ trafficking.

These are exactly the sorts of things that we need to be on our guard against and send a very clear message to the Australian population that it is just not acceptable. It is only through this and through the United Nations and our diplomatic efforts overseas that we shall encourage all countries to make a very clear statement on these matters. It is not like selling crops: this is the exploitation of people, and whether it is leveraging them into these situations through their financial hardships or doing it unbeknownst to the person that is concerned, we must send a clear message through diplomatic signals and to the Australian people—citizens and residents of this country—that it is just not acceptable. We should never allow the human organ trafficking and sale of human organs to be acceptable, and we need always to be on guard against it.

I turn now to the issue of forced marriages. The act of forcing another person into a marriage will now be covered under this legislation, and will include strict liability to anyone found guilty. This will be justified on the basis that the elements needed to establish the excuse would usually lie peculiarly with the knowledge of the accused, and it would be significantly more difficult for the prosecution to disprove than for the accused to establish. As the previous coalition speaker mentioned, we have some concerns that it is possible that the imposition of strict liability could result in injustice in particular cases. We strongly recommend that the government justifications be closely examined. When we have the reports in from the House and Senate committees, I hope that will be covered.

Forced marriage has a long history. It was originally conducted to acquire a captive. It has a history among the upper classes in Europe and is, unfortunately, still practised in parts of South Asia, East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. I note that at CHOGM in Perth there was certainly a commitment to end the practice of early enforced marriages of girls. I know that in Australia the act of forced marriage is often carried out for immigration purposes, and I know that this happens among those with origins in the Middle East, Africa, some parts of Europe and Asia. If someone says anything is not the Australian way then they are always maligned in this place and in the wider community, but the reality is that we should be very suspicious of teenage girls being granted visas to marry men in their 50s or 60s, and I commend the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for being on guard against specifically these sorts of things.

My personal view is that if you have never met the person that you are lined up to marry then it is absolute rubbish and should always be rejected. To have the resources in place to catch people out and to hold people to account for trying to do this sort of thing is the right way to go. In this country there is an expectation that a marriage involves a man and a woman, that there is a history between them and that, hopefully, the love is very strong. It is completely inconsistent for a forced marriage or, in my view, an arranged marriage to be considered legitimate. When a visa is involved, that gives us an opportunity to hold people to account for doing things which, I think, are clearly not legitimate. We know that forced marriages place vulnerable young people—often girls—at risk. When we talk about the difference in age being so substantial, as with people of 16 marrying people in their 50s or 60s, it certainly looks a whole lot like paedophilia to me.

With respect to the resources that are in place, the hard line from the department of immigration is certainly required. We have seen a lot of people wishing to come to this country for a better life. My personal view is that, if someone wants to apply to come to this country and they see their future here, working hard and providing for their family, that is a great thing. We should encourage people to do that in the correct way. But there does seem to be a disturbing culture amongst certain ethnic communities, who feel that, to have a marriage, you have to bring someone from the old country over here. The sad part is the fact that the parties to the marriage have never met. That is a situation that the department and governments of any persuasion should reject.

Forced marriage and trafficking are terrible situations. For the protection of people both in Australia and overseas, sending clear messages about what is acceptable, regardless of any cultural excuses, through this sort of legislation is, in principle, the right way forward. I look forward to this legislation passing once due consideration has been given to the House and Senate committee reports.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-Like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 and commend the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, for putting forward these amendments. This bill establishes new offences of forced labour, forced marriage, organ trafficking and harbouring of a victim. It will also modify the scope and application of existing offences of slavery, deceptive recruiting, sexual servitude and trafficking persons and will increase the penalty for the offence of debt bondage.

Under the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, trafficking is defined as:

… the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.

Between June 2004 and June 20011 the Australian Federal Police undertook 305 investigations and assessments of people trafficking and related offences. Thirteen people have been convicted of such offences in Australia. This nefarious activity leaves a dark stain our society. It is a blight on our nation's soul.

In speaking to this legislation I want to praise the work of people who very deeply influenced me in this area, the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans. I had a meeting with Christine, Carolyn and other people from ACRATH again today and I commend their work and the focus on this important issue that they help bring to this parliament and to parliamentarians. Two things that they particularly drew to my attention were valuable in today's discussion.

The first was that the Palermo protocol, which is the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, suggests that compensation for victims of human trafficking should come not at the point after conviction of the exploiter but before the conviction, because this often makes the trafficked person more capable of testifying about those crimes. In other words, if you have a woman who has been sexually trafficked and now has secure accommodation, some means of sustaining herself and support then she is more likely to participate in a court case than if she were hanging around until a court case is concluded, which as we all know can take ages.

Victims of trafficking identified in Australia have mostly been women trafficked for exploitation in the commercial sex industry. However, we have seen trafficking occur in agriculture, construction, hospitality, domestic services and recreation industries. Australia's long role in tackling human trafficking and slavery is illustrated through our ratification of the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery on 18 June 1927 and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutional Practices Similar to Slavery on 6 January 1958. Slavery offences were not explicit in Australian law until they were introduced in 1999. We signed the trafficking protocol when trafficking offences were enacted in 2005 through the Criminal Code Amendment (Trafficking in Persons Offences) Act 2005. Following this, we ratified the trafficking protocol on 14 September of that year. In 2008, the United Nations estimated that 2.5 million people from 137 countries had been trafficked to another 137 countries around the world. Almost 20 per cent of the trafficking victims were children. Since 2003 the Australian government, under both Liberal and Labor leadership, have provided $50 million to support antitrafficking initiatives, including specialist investigation teams for the Australian Federal Police.

The legislation addresses a number of gaps in the current offence regime. Those who suffer people trafficking and slavery are faced with a lifetime of mental and physical anguish. They are subject to abhorrent and heinous offences. In a modern society in a modern age this should not be occurring, particularly in a wealthy country like Australia. This bill, under the leadership of Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, the member for Gellibrand, illustrates the Australian government's commitment to combating all forms of slavery and people trafficking.

We are doing what we can to protect people from the darker recesses of this society. I was pleased when the UN special rapporteur on trafficking in persons, Dr Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, noted that Australia had 'demonstrated strong leadership in combating trafficking of persons regionally and domestically'. This is an area in which Australia should continue to be active. In particular, it should be seen in the context of attempts to get people involved in sexual servitude into Australia. We do not have the kinds of problems that occur in the Middle East, where domestic servants are exploited by large numbers of people. But the Attorney-General has been working very hard to see that this legislation combats the sex trade properly. I commend the government's bill to the House.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too wish to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-Like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012. We have been very serious about the antislavery bills in this House before, but this bill amends the Criminal Code Act offences covering forced labour and harbouring a victim, and it introduces two additional offences—they are forced marriage and organ trafficking.

I think is extremely important to acknowledge a growing trend in some of our not-so-near neighbours, where there is, it seems, a growing business for people who are very poor having organs removed, often for very little remuneration but compromising their health. You also have to wonder, when these offences occur, if a person who is having their kidneys or some other organ removed really understands what the consequences are and what the alternatives were for them. We are, as I say, establishing these new offences of forced labour, forced marriage, organ trafficking and also the harbouring of a victim.

The bill ensures that the slavery offence applies to conduct that renders a person a slave as well as conduct involving a person who is already a slave. We have to remember that this is always about profit. It is always about one party wishing to get a commercial advantage out of the exploitation of another—it might be a child or it might be a man, but most commonly it is a woman. We are also to extend the application of existing offences of deceptive recruiting and sexual servitude to apply to non-sexual servitude and all forms of deceptive recruiting. It may be the case, for example, that slavery involves young boys spending much of their lives on fishing vessels, but that may be overlooked. They are not obvious—they are not seen begging on the streets of Cambodia; they are not seen as women in brothels in some other countries—but those boys serving out their lives on fishing vessels until they can escape are just as much slaves and in need of protection by law.

This bill also increases the penalties applicable to the existing debt bondage offences to ensure they are in line with the serious nature of the offences. It broadens the definition of exploitation under the criminal code to include all slavery-like practices. It amends existing definitions to ensure that the broadest range of exploitative conduct is criminalised by the offences, including psychological oppression and the abuse of power or taking advantage of a person's vulnerability. In Australia we have to be particularly aware of the potential for that psychological oppression and abuse of a person when a woman is engaged or married to an Australian national and she has come from another culture where there is a different expectation about the rights of the woman. The woman may not be aware that there is such a thing as rape in marriage. She may have no economic independence whatsoever and be particularly vulnerable to psychological oppression and abuse of power.

We must be very aware of that potential in Australian society and be aware when it occurs that the woman and her children, if there are children, need special support. This bill improves the availability of reparations to victims. There may be serious consequences for a woman in Australia perhaps being deported because part of her circumstances is that she is an illegal in our system. It is often very difficult in the first instance to identify the victim and make sure that there are proper reparations for that victim—including returning her to her home country to give her a new life and perhaps a new identity.

We make much in Australia of, for example, our chocolate or our cocoa having labels which say, 'This product has been produced without any environmental damage.' Sometimes the labels suggest that there has been no child slavery involved, but the reality for many commodities like cocoa, which eventually goes into chocolate, is that the children in some African countries are in slave-like conditions. I refer in particular to places like Ghana. We are aware of that circumstance. The other day we introduced illegal logging legislation. Perhaps we as a nation need to be looking much more closely at the importation of other products where we know that the labour has not been legally engaged and the workers, whether children or adults, have not had their rights properly protected. We are now concerned about illegal logging. When are we going to be concerned about illegal production of the choice foods we eat by forced labour?

I am also most concerned that there is more encouragement for countries where most of this global trafficking in persons, or even national trafficking, occurs. I refer to a report from February 2009 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Global report on trafficking in persons. It states:

… sexual exploitation was noted as by far the most commonly identified form of human trafficking (79%) followed by forced labour (18%). This may be the result of statistical bias.

I referred at the beginning of my remarks to the case of young boys on fishing vessels. The UN report states:

By and large, the exploitation of women tends to be visible, in city centres or along highways. Because it is more frequently reported, sexual exploitation has become the most documented type of trafficking, in aggregate statistics. In comparison, other forms of exploitation are under-reported: forced or bonded labour; domestic servitude and forced marriage; organ removal; and the exploitation of children in begging, the sex trade and warfare.

We have recently tried to help some of the child victims who have been forcibly recruited into armies, particularly in countries in Africa. We know the great damage it does to a young person psychologically, emotionally and physically. We need to be aware that the data collected on human trafficking very often, as this report shows, over-represents the highly visible sexual exploitation, ignoring those other forms of abuse such as servitude or slavery—for example, domestic servitude. In the Middle East, some countries depend on the labour of guest workers, men and women. Often the conditions under which they work and their freedom of movement are curtailed by the culture and the business arrangements that they face.

There is also a disproportionate number of women involved in human trafficking not only as victims but also as traffickers. Female offenders have a more prominent role in present day slavery than in most other forms of crime. This needs to be addressed, especially in cases where former victims have become perpetrators. We need to be aware that it is not only men exploiting women; it is sometimes women exploiting women. So when we are looking for the perpetrators of these crimes, we need to look widely.

I am also concerned that some people are wondering whether this legislation will rebound to include such things as child labour on family farms in Australia. I do not think we would be so stupid in Australia to include such things as, say, a young child picking fruit on their family farm or helping with the shearing, as I did from an early age. I was always a rouseabout in my family shearing sheds from the age of about eight. I loved the work. I was never paid, but I did not expect to be. I worked very hard and I did not expect to exercise much choice about the matter at the time either, given my farm family's culture. I think we have to be very sensible in Australia about separating out those sorts of family labour expectations as not in the same league as young children who are sold into slavery due to the extraordinary poverty faced by their family. In countries such as Cambodia, young children end up as beggars in Phnom Penh or the girls are sold into the sex trade when they have graduated from being the props in a begging situation—for example, with an older woman holding a young baby—to the baby being old enough to work in a brothel.

I mention this in passing because some people have said, 'Isn't this just another way of a government trying to capture the family farm traditions of Australia in legislation, forbidding the family farm the tradition and sometimes necessity of all hands on deck when the seasonal work is on?' I do not think this government intends that and I think it is a furphy to be worried about that situation. What I am concerned about is that more Australians should be aware of the Criminal Code, which now includes issues of forced marriage and forced labour. If people see a couple where it is apparent that one, usually the woman, is in a circumstance which is unfair and brutalising to the woman, where her freedoms are curtailed or she is being psychologically oppressed, it is the duty of all of us, as citizens, to do something about that situation, not just observe from a distance and say: 'Tut, tut. They would do that, they're from some other place.'

These are important additions to the legislation. Australia as a developed nation needs to help lead the world in identifying any of these criminal offences in our own country and to support other, less developed, nations where they need support in developing their criminal codes or the policing of their labour or workforce situations. We of course also, through our foreign aid budget, will assist other nations or communities where extreme poverty makes children and women vulnerable to being sold into the sex trade or as labourers, or even to being forced to sell their organs. I commend this bill to the House.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation, which strengthens Australia's position and contribution when it comes to the terrible scourge of trafficking in human beings which flows from and into conditions that amount to modern day slavery. I commend the minister for bringing forward this necessary update to our domestic legal framework, as it will put our law enforcement agencies in a better position to investigate and prosecute exploitative criminal conduct through all its evil, evolving twists and turns.

This legislation is aimed at ensuring the broadest range of exploitative behaviour is captured and criminalised, including by introducing new offences of forced labour, of harbouring or receiving a victim of trafficking or slavery and of forced marriage. The bill extends the existing offences of deceptive recruiting and sexual servitude and increases penalties for existing debt bondage offences, as well as improving the availability of reparations to victims. I note too that, in keeping with this government's commitment to thorough process, this legislation has been formed after the release and consideration of two discussion papers on slavery, people trafficking and forced marriage.

I have some direct professional experience of witnessing and combating the practice of trafficking. While in Kosovo I chaired a working group on trafficking in persons, primarily women and girls, who were being trafficked for the purposes of prostitution. The absence of law enforcement that followed the withdrawal of Serbian forces in June 1999, coupled with the slow build-up of effective interim police services, enabled organised crime, and with it the trade in human beings, to flourish. Women and girls were being trafficked from Eastern Europe to Kosovo as a transit point to Albania and Italy and as a final destination, because of the large international military and civilian police presence. Compared to drug trafficking, this was a crime involving large financial rewards and little risk for those involved. Drug traffickers were relatively easy to convict if caught with drugs and there were serious penalties; people traffickers were more difficult to convict due to the intimidation experienced by victims, who could be afraid to testify. Even if convicted, people traffickers would rarely be subject to serious penalties. Further, whereas drugs cannot be resold once used, a person can be sold and resold many times. This is what had happened to many of the young women that we met in Kosovo. They reported feeling an overwhelming sense of helplessness and degradation from being in a foreign country, a long way from home, where they did not speak the language and were forced to provide sexual services for men for up to 15 hours a day. They were under the control of organised criminal gangs who had their passports, who regarded them as being in debt to them and who threatened harm to their families back home if they tried to run away.

We drafted world-first legislation that implemented in Kosovo the protocol to the UN convention on transnational organised crime relating to the trafficking of women and children, with an emphasis on the rights of the victim to protection, shelter, health services, assistance with repatriation, legal advice, interpreters and compensation. The legislation also criminalised the users of trafficked women, not just the criminal organisations carrying out the trafficking. It criminalised the intentional withholding of identification documents and it provided for the non-criminalisation of the trafficked person, whereby a trafficked person would not be held criminally responsible for prostitution or for illegal entry, presence or work if the person was a victim of trafficking.

Educating the international civilian presence about the issues was a particular challenge I was involved in. The UN could and did instruct its civilian staff and police not to patronise particular bars that were known to use or were suspected of using trafficked women and girls, but it was very difficult to deal with the military contingents, as the UN did not have jurisdiction over them.

It was a matter of visiting the different commanders for each national contingent and asking them to put in place measures and training for their soldiers. Trafficking in persons is a complex phenomenon encompassing such issues as gender discrimination, economic exploitation and globalisation.

Debate interrupted.