Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the government’s response to the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Crime Commission on the trafficking of women for sexual servitude. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Government Response to the Report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission “Inquiry into the trafficking of women for sexual servitude” released in June 2004

Introduction

The Australian Government is actively and effectively combating trafficking persons. The Government’s measures address the full trafficking cycle from recruitment to reintegration, and lend equal weight to the critical areas of prevention, prosecution and victim support. The Government continues to monitor the effectiveness of Australia’s anti-trafficking efforts.

In June 2003, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission (the Committee) commenced an inquiry into the work of the Australian Crime Commission in assessing trafficking in women for the purposes of sexual servitude in Australia.

The Committee released its report in June 2004. The Committee made nine recommendations, which are addressed in turn below.

In June 2005, the Committee decided to revisit the issue of people trafficking and evaluate the progress of the implementation of its recommendations.

The Committee released a supplementary report in August 2005.

The Government will respond separately to the supplementary report.

The Committee’s Terms of Reference and the Scope of the Report

The Committee’s terms of reference were:

That, in accordance with paragraph 55(1)(a) and (d) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission inquire into and report on the Australian Crime Commission’s response to the emerging trend of trafficking in women for sexual servitude with particular reference to:

(1)

the Australian Crime Commission’s work in establishing the extent of people trafficking in Australia for the purposes of sexual servitude;

(2)

the Australian Crime Commission’s relationship with the relevant State and other Commonwealth agencies; and

(3)

the adequacy of the current legislative framework.”

Section 55(1)(a) and (d) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 sets out the context for these terms of reference:

Section 55—Duties of the Committee

(1) The duties of the Committee are:

(a) to monitor and to review the performance by the ACC of its functions;

...

(d) to examine trends and changes in criminal activities, practices and methods and report to both Houses of the Parliament any change which the Committee thinks desirable to the functions, structure, powers and procedures of the ACC; and

The Committee’s report was far broader than these terms of reference. Of nine recommendations, only one recommends action by the Australian Crime Commission, and only three very closely related recommendations focus on legislation. Only one chapter out of four focused on “trends and changes in criminal activities”. The remaining recommendations—more than half those made—are well beyond the inquiry’s terms of reference.

RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission focus their investigations on the methods by which people traffickers are able to circumvent Australian immigration barriers through visa fraud.

Response:

Accepted in part.

The Australian Crime Commission’s priorities are determined by the Australian Crime Commission Board, comprising the heads of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies and State and Territory Police Commissioners. The Board of the Australian Crime Commission approved a Special Intelligence Operation into People Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation in December 2003. The special intelligence operation, which allows the use of coercive powers, extended to 30 September 2006.

The Australian Crime Commission is committed to improving Australia’s understanding of the nature and scope of people trafficking to Australia for the purpose of sexual exploitation. This includes assisting other agencies to examine methods used by traffickers to facilitate movement of their victims across borders. Visa fraud and the corruption of officials to facilitate people trafficking for sexual exploitation are relevant areas where the Australian Crime Commission assists other agencies investigations as requested through provision of access to its coercive powers.

Additionally, Australia is committed to a whole of government approach to combating people trafficking, smuggling and other trans-national migration crime. In this context, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) overseas compliance network, in conjunction with the work of other key Australian government agencies such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP), has a significant deterrent effect. The effectiveness of the overseas compliance network is demonstrated by our success in reducing the activities of people attempting to enter Australia without authority.

DIMA is the prime agency focussing on visa fraud and continues to look at profiling methods to reduce its incidence, including sex trafficking. Where such profiles can be developed, they are now included on the new safeguards systems, which alerts those processing them to inherent risks. To assist this process and to more directly address the problems of sex trafficking, a Senior Migration Officer (Compliance) was placed in Thailand in December 2003 with a specific focus on people trafficking in the South East Asia region. The role includes undertaking analyses of trends in the visa processing caseload including applicants’ travel patterns, use of migration agents and the nature of claims lodged in support of applications; vetting the visa caseload for fraud that may lead to people trafficking; and liaison with local government and non-government organisations. That officer is part of a compliance network located at 22 overseas posts in 19 countries.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends the formalisation of the existing Interdepartmental Committee (IDC), by the appointment of a Chairperson and charter, which should state the IDC’s formal responsibility for addressing coordination issues and its authority to issue recommendations to any relevant authority to address defects in the system.

The IDC charter should require the IDC to issue a response to matters referred to it within a stipulated timeframe.

The IDC charter should require the IDC to review its functions after eighteen months in operation and make a recommendation on its future.

Response:

Not accepted.

The Interdepartmental Committee (IDC) is formalised. It was created by the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator the Hon Chris Ellison, in March 2003 with the approval of the Prime Minister. The IDC first met on 9 April 2003. Its mandate was to examine the issue and develop a whole of government strategy. It completed that task and now continues to monitor the implementation of the Australian Government’s measures to combat trafficking.

The Committee’s objectives of co-ordinated oversight of anti-trafficking measures can be achieved using the existing IDC, without the need for further formalisation of structures. The IDC is an overall steering group which also discusses emerging issues, particularly those which cross portfolios. The Chair of the IDC is a senior officer of the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD).

Individual agencies are responsible for the delivery of their parts of the package. This structure does not mean that “the objective of a ‘whole of government approach’ may be undermined by the absence of any single final authority” or that “there is no-one responsible for making sure that the overall system actually works”. On the contrary, the structure ensures that the overall strategic direction of Australia’s anti-trafficking measures is carefully monitored, while agency experts implement individual components. Problems arising are taken up, when appropriate, in the IDC. Solutions are developed, and individual agencies implement them.

The Management Advisory Committee Report Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges provides further discussion of the nature and role of Interdepartmental Committees (pages 26 to 29).

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends the urgent reassessment of benefits payable to women under the victim support scheme. Given that a precondition of participation in the scheme is the women’s preparedness to assist Australian law enforcement agencies to prosecute traffickers, it would be appropriate for women under the scheme to receive benefits benchmarked against those afforded to witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme.

Response:

Not accepted.

The level of financial support provided on the Programme is parallel to that provided to Australian citizens in receipt of income support payments such as age pensioners and sole parents. In addition, victims receive access to specialised services that help them deal with and overcome their experiences. These services include intensive case management and counselling, training such as English lessons and vocational training where appropriate, and assistance with adjusting to a different living pattern or daily routine.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that the following matters be examined in the legislative review announced as part of the government package:

• the adequacy of existing provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1995 covering recruiting transportation and transfer of women for the purposes of trafficking;
• amending section 270(7) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 to broaden the offence of deception to include deception regarding not only the type of work to be done, but expressly the kind of services to be provided, whether of a sexual nature or not;
• adopting the use of victim impact statements in sentencing.

Response:

Accepted in part.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Trafficking in Persons Offences) Act 2005 (the Act) commenced on 3 August 2005.

This legislation was developed after a review of the existing trafficking offences and consideration of public submissions in response to an Exposure Draft of the bill.

The Act inserted into the Criminal Code:

• offences of trafficking persons into or out of Australia by means of force, threats or deception or where the trafficker is reckless as to whether the victim will be exploited (maximum penalty: 12 years imprisonment)
• an aggravated offence of trafficking persons into or out of Australia where the person intends that the victim will be exploited, subjects the victim to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the victim is endangered (maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment)
• offences of trafficking children into or out of Australia where the person is reckless as to whether the victim will be exploited or used to provide sexual services (maximum penalty: 25 years imprisonment)
• offences of domestic trafficking in persons by means of force, threats or deception or where the trafficker is reckless as to whether the victim will be exploited (maximum penalty: 12 years imprisonment)
• an aggravated offence of domestic trafficking in persons where the person intends that the victim will be exploited, subjects the victim to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the victim is endangered (maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment)
• an offence of domestic trafficking in children under 18 years where the person is reckless as to whether the victim will be exploited or will be used to provide sexual services (maximum penalty: 25 years imprisonment)
• a new debt bondage offence to supplement the existing broad slavery offence in section 270.3 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty: 2 years imprisonment for an aggravated offence).

The Act significantly extended the scope of the deceptive recruiting for sexual services offence in section 270.7 of the federal Criminal Code.

The amended offence not only includes deception about the fact that the person will be working in the sex industry, but deception about the exploitative conditions of that employment.

The new offence covers deception about:

• the extent to which the person will be free to leave the place or area where the person provides sexual services,
• the nature of the sexual services to be provided (for example, whether those services will require the person to have unprotected sex),
• the extent to which the person will be free to leave the place or area where the person provides sexual services,
• the extent to which the person will be free to cease providing sexual services,
• the extent to which the person will be free to leave his or her place of residence,
• if there is or will be a debt owed or claimed to be owed by the person in connection with the engagement—the quantum, or the existence, of the debt owed or claimed to be owed, or
• the fact that the engagement will involve exploitation, debt bondage or the confiscation of the person’s travel or identity documents.

The Act also inserted into the Criminal Code new offences of trafficking by deception. New subsection 271.2(2) makes it an offence to organise or facilitate the entry of another person into Australia where there is deception about the fact that the entry will involve the provision of sexual services, exploitation, debt bondage or the confiscation of the other person’s travel or identity documents.

New subsection 271.2(2A) is similar to subsection 271.2(2) but applies where a person organises or facilitates the exit from Australia.

Paragraphs 16A(2)(d) and 16A(2)(e) of the Crimes Act 1914 provide that, in sentencing a person for a Commonwealth offence, the court must take into account the “personal circumstances of any victim of the offence” and “any injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence.” Evidence given to the court as to the matters in either of these paragraphs may include a statement by the victim of the offence about his or her experience of the impact of the offence. This applies to the new trafficking offences.

The Australian Law Reform Commission recently reviewed Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914, which deals with the sentencing and administration of federal offenders. Any proposed amendments to Part 1B dealing with victim impact statements will be dealt with in the context of that review. The Government is currently considering the recommendations in the ALRC’s report.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends the speedy implementation of the legislative review that forms part of the anti-trafficking measures announced in October 2003. The review should focus particularly on the measures needed to ensure Australia’s compliance with the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children.

Response:

Accepted.

The Government conducted the review as a matter of priority. The need for rapid passage of the new law was balanced with the need for careful drafting of complex legislation, the necessary consultation to ensure the laws are as effective as possible, and the fact that already existing legislation has supported numerous prosecutions.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Trafficking in Persons Offences) Act 2005 comprehensively criminalises trafficking in persons activity, fulfilling Australia’s legislative obligations under the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (the Protocol).

Recommendation 6

The Committee further recommends that the results of this review form the basis for legislative changes that should be ready for introduction to the Parliament early in 2005.

Response:

Accepted.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Trafficking in Persons Offences) Act 2005 commenced on 3 August 2005.

Recommendation 7

That the Protocol be ratified as soon as possible.

Response:

Accepted.

Australia ratified the Protocol on 14 September 2005.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends 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.

Response:

Not accepted.

Criminal Justice Stay (CJSV) holders who contribute to the prosecution or investigation of an alleged people trafficking offence, and who may be in danger if they return home, may be able to stay in Australia temporarily or permanently through grant of Witness Protection (Trafficking) visas.

The Witness Protection (Trafficking) (Temporary) visa may be offered to persons who hold a Criminal Justice Stay Visa where the Attorney-General has certified that the person is either:

i       one who has made a major contribution to and cooperated closely with the prosecution of a person who has trafficked or forced others into exploitative conditions; or

ii      one who has made a significant contribution to, and cooperated closely with, an investigation in relation to which the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to prosecute a person who was alleged to have trafficked a person or who was alleged to have forced a person into exploitative conditions.

The person must not be the subject of any related prosecutions, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs must be satisfied that the person would be in significant personal danger were they to return to their home country.

A Witness Protection (Trafficking) (Permanent) visa will be offered to persons who have held the corresponding temporary visa for at least two years and who continue to meet the criteria for the Witness Protection (Trafficking) (Temporary) visa.

In addition, legislative changes are being brought forward to enable persons offshore who are assisting the criminal justice process relating to trafficking to also access the Witness Protection (Trafficking) visa regime.

It would not be feasible to allow a CJSV holder to remain in Australia simply on the basis of having held this type of visa. As an investigation progresses it may be found that a CJSV holder was not in fact trafficked or that they were not a genuine witness. In these circumstances it is appropriate that arrangements are made for their removal from Australia. The current arrangement has also been designed to avoid encouraging people to become involved in sex trafficking and avoiding fraudulent claims.

The Government’s approach is focussed on stamping out this practice, not on removal, and has provided scope for dealing with both those who cannot return and those whose return is appropriate. Accordingly, Australia has developed a special reintegration package for those victims of trafficking who are not eligible for the Witness Protection (Trafficking) Visa to choose to return home. This package, managed by AusAID, is designed to reduce the danger of the person being trafficked again by linking victims returning home to domestic government and NGO sources of support and counselling, support networks and vocational training. This complements a wide range of regional preventative efforts conducted by AusAID with partners in the region.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that the government review current visa provisions, and consider changes to ensure that the Minister for Immigration has the discretion to allow witnesses to return to their country of origin for short periods to enable contact with their families. Such a visit should be subject to conditions including reporting requirements.

Response:

Accepted in part.

Current legislation already provides means to facilitate return.

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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I wish to discuss the government response to the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Crime Commission report on the trafficking of women for sexual servitude. I appreciate that on other occasions we get later opportunities to speak to these responses, but, firstly, because it is not always certain at this time of year that the Senate does get that chance on subsequent Thursdays and, secondly, because of the importance of the topic, I thought it was appropriate to take note of the tabling of the government response as an indication from the Senate of the significance we attach to the issue and to the fact that the government has responded.

The first comment I have to make about the government response is that the report on this most important of issues, trafficking of women for sexual servitude, was actually initially tabled in June 2004. To wait nearly 2½ years for the government to respond is a reflection of the lack of respect the government has for the parliamentary process, for the committee process—and this is a parliamentary joint committee, I might emphasise, not a Senate committee—and also for the importance of the issue. I have made this point a number of times before, but I think it needs to be made again and again. Hopefully, one day the government or those ministers who are the biggest offenders will actually take the point on board. It is not just a matter of being disrespectful to the Senate or to the parliament in taking so long to respond to recommendations in reports; I would suggest it is disrespectful to the people in the community who make the effort to contribute to inquiries.

I was not a member of this committee at the time that it brought down this report. I think my colleague former Democrat senator Brian Greig was a member, and during his time in this place he certainly put a great deal of focus and attention on the issue of trafficking—not just the trafficking of women for sexual servitude but trafficking more broadly, though clearly the trafficking of women for sexual servitude is a key part of the trafficking problem. I know this is an issue that people in the community are working on and continue to work on, and I just think it reflects badly on the government all around for us to wait nearly 2½ years before its response comes down.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s not a record, 2½ years, believe it or not.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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)

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not take my full time on this report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, as Senator Bartlett has dealt with some of the substantive issues. This is a serious issue, and it does not do the government credit to fail to do three things that it should have done. Firstly, from my short inquiry this morning, it does not appear that the Australian Crime Commission or the parliamentary committee were advised that the report would be tabled today and, to ensure there was a proper response to this matter, it would have been helpful had the government advised them that that was the case.

Secondly, contained in this report is the criticism, which Senator Bartlett went to, that the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Crime Commission might have exceeded or gone far broader than its terms of reference. Let me say this for the record, for the department that might be listening and to the minister responsible: when these matters do go broader—I do not think they did—it is because they are serious. They did require attention by the committee and they have been embodied in the recommendations that the committee made. Looking at the broad scope of the committee, the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Crime Commission has a statutory responsibility to examine trends and changes in the methods and practices of criminal activities and to report to parliament with any suggested changes. Accordingly, the committee, as it said, conducted an inquiry into the commission’s involvement in assessing trafficking for the purposes of sexual servitude in Australia, its relationship with relevant state and other Commonwealth agencies and the adequacy of the current legislative framework. I cannot speak on behalf of the committee but, having served as a member of the committee, I can say that I make no apology for going broader than the committee’s terms of reference in making these recommendations.

Thirdly, the government has not taken this opportunity to reply to the supplementary report to the inquiry into the trafficking of women for sexual servitude. Given the length of time it has taken the government to respond to the first June 2004 report, it could have taken this opportunity to deal with both reports at the same time. The government has chosen in this instance not to do so and that is disappointing. It has indicated that a further response will be forthcoming. Let us hope that we do not have to wait a similar amount of time for that second report to be dealt with.

In terms of the general thrust of the government’s response, I have to say that, in response to some of the recommendations—and where credit is due it is worth giving—the government has ensured that we have been able to meet the relevant protocols. On 14 September 2005, the government ratified the protocol in recommendation 7 and it did pass the relevant legislation, which was facilitated through this parliament, to ensure that a relevant legislative framework was in place to deal with this shocking crime. Therefore, on those points, from the point of view of both the opposition and the government, it is worth saying that we are pleased to see both an improved legislative framework and the ratification of the protocol. Both needed to be done, and Labor are pleased that they have been done. However, the government has not responded adequately or well, frankly, to some of the recommendations—I will not go into all the recommendations now; I will take time to go carefully through them and deal with them at a later time—that would have helped victims of this sort of crime. A broader look by this government at some of those issues that were raised really is required, where the government could examine how to help the victims of such crime more. One of the recommendations said:

The Committee recommends 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.

I think the responses the government have provided to some of those matters are inadequate and not sufficient to justify the position that they have adopted. The government’s approach is focused on stamping out this practice, which they have argued that they would, and not on removal. That is in part accepted, but I think that, in terms of ensuring that the victims of crime are treated reasonably, the government have a long way to go.

There are a range of other recommendations that I will not deal with, as I have indicated today, but I do hope to see at an earlier stage the response to the August 2005 report, because it contains a number of important recommendations, such as:

The Committee recommends that the ACC continue its involvement in law enforcement strategies against sexual servitude and trafficking in women.

Recommendation 2 says:

The Committee recommends that a review of the new legislation take place a year after its implementation ...

And recommendation 3 says:

The Committee recommends that the ANAO consider undertaking an evaluation of the results of the National Action Plan, after three years of operation.

They are three worthwhile recommendations that we do not yet have responses to, and I encourage the government to not only provide a response but also seriously consider adopting those recommendations and ensuring that they can be dealt with in a comprehensive way. The government also have not accepted the recommendation to ensure that there would be victim impact statements. The government have said that they have accepted it in part, but they have not ensured that the broader issues will be addressed for the victims of these terrible crimes. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.