Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

It is not the worst there has been, you are right, but the benchmark is meant to be three months—let me make that point as well. That is what is meant to occur. I appreciate that is not always possible, particularly with complex reports and lots of recommendations, but once you get past 12 months it is pretty poor.

Turning to the government’s actual response, the minister starts out by basically complaining that a lot of the recommendations, more than half of those made, went beyond the inquiry’s terms of reference. That may be the case—I would not pass judgement on it either way—but, when a committee starts to examine issues like these, the debate naturally extends into wider areas. I think it was open to the committee to make recommendations based on the evidence that came before it. It is not a legislative inquiry where you can say, ‘This is outside the bill before us.’ This was an inquiry into an issue. If you want to be genuine about it, you cannot just say, ‘We’ll pretend we haven’t seen that bit, even though it may lead us to find some of the answers that we need to find.’ So I think it was open to the committee to make recommendations about intelligence gathering, victim protection and support et cetera. I think this is an important part of what needs to happen.

If victims of trafficking cannot be assured of being supported and protected, why would they come forward to the police? If they fear that the most likely outcome if they do so is that they will be grabbed and sent back to where they have come from, potentially facing shame, great debt and danger from some of the criminal gangs that were involved in trafficking them in the first place, they are not likely to come forward and say, ‘By the way, there is law-breaking going on here.’ Law enforcement needs the best possible support, and that includes having a system that recognises and assists the victims.

I know that the government, in response to pressure from the Democrats and others in the community, announced a new visa scheme back in January 2004. I am pleased that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is in the chamber, as I know this issue is one that she is concerned about as well. The new scheme included a new bridging visa followed by a criminal justice stay visa and other witness protection visas. These have played a part—I acknowledge that—but the issue here, as I said before, is not just about visas that assist Australia in being able to generate a prosecution. That is important, but we have to look at the causal effects, not just deal with the consequences.

This is not purely a legal issue. There are victims of terrible crimes of which I think most Australians would be completely unaware. This is sexual slavery happening in Australia. Women are being trafficked into Australia and women within Australia are being subjected to sexual slavery. I think the vast majority of Australians would be completely oblivious to the fact that this is happening under their noses. I would even suggest that many people who use commercial sex worker services would be unaware that in some circumstances they are dealing with women who have been trafficked and who are sex slaves.

I am not passing judgement on people who use prostitution—that is a different debate and I do not want to muddy this debate with that one—but the fact is that in many parts of Australia prostitution is legal in various ways. I am sure that most of those legal sex services would not use sex slaves, but the fact is that many Australians engage in this activity, and I am certain that many of them who actually come into contact with victims of trafficking would not even know it. Until we start making people more aware of the signs to look for, that will continue to happen.

The other aspect that we must take into account is the need to have ways of assisting the victims beyond just helping us to prosecute the criminals. The witness protection visas do not do that. I suggest that this is a perfect area—and the minister for immigration would be aware of calls for this—for what are generally called complementary protection visas. They are onshore visas that assist people who have very strong humanitarian cases, where there are clearly strong humanitarian reasons and circumstances that do not fit into neat categories like those under the refugee convention. It is precisely in these sorts of situations where it would be in our interests, for criminal prosecution purposes, to track down the criminals and the people behind this trafficking, and of course in the interests of the victim, providing them with more security and safety.

Recommendation 3 suggests an urgent reassessment of the benefits payable to women under the victim support scheme. This recommendation was not accepted by the government. I think that is a shame, because this is a very important area. Currently, a trafficking victim’s ability to access the victim support program is contingent on their capacity to assist police in a criminal investigation or prosecution. Trafficking victims who are not involved in the law enforcement and criminal justice process have been left to find care and support from members of the community and religious organisations, or they have no support at all. The government should consider widening the victim support program to guarantee that all victims of trafficking receive access to comprehensive health services, residential and vocational support and other legal and migration advice.

This is not just a border protection issue or that sort of thing; this is a very serious human rights issue. Trafficking, slavery and sexual slavery are grave violations of human rights and I am sure that we all recognise that. We are abandoning victims if we focus too narrowly on criminal justice outcomes. That is why it is inevitable that this committee, in its report and in producing its recommendations, would have gone wider than just law enforcement issues. That is unfortunate, particularly with recommendation 3 and also recommendation 8, which was that all trafficked women accepted onto the victim support program or receiving the criminal justice stay visa be exempt from compulsory return to their country of origin. That would not mean they could stay here forever, but compulsory return creates a big disincentive. It is against their own interests, let alone those of the victim.

I appreciate the government finally responding, but I think there is a lot more work to do here. This is a current issue and a real issue; it is happening now in our community. It is a serious breach of human rights. We need to become more aware of it and do more to assist victims of these terrible circumstances. (Time expired)