- A specialised police unit AUSTRALIAN LEGAL RESPONSES: Statute Law and Government Policies 1999 – “Slavery, Servitude and Sexual Servitude” were made illegal at a federal level (Section 270 of the Criminal Code (Cth)) 2003 – the Commonwealth Action Plan to Eradicate Trafficking in Persons (2003) (first real step towards addressing trafficking, specifically sex trafficking in Australia) The ‘Plan’ involved: - A specialised police unit - Migration officers located in Thailand, the Philippines, etc - New visa arrangements (for the victims of HT) - A victim support package (through Centrelink) - Ratification of the Palermo Protocol 2000 2005 – The specific crime of HT was added to the Criminal Code (Section 271 – 12 years max for trafficking; 25 years max for trafficking in children) PROBLEM: The threshold for actually PROVING trafficking is very HIGH (difficult to prove  unlikely to prosecute) 2011-12 - The AFP investigated 45 cases of people trafficking in Australia

Gave police more powers to investigate these situations 2013 - Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act 2013 This law Gave police more powers to investigate these situations Increased penalties, especially for debt bondage Made forced labour and forced marriage a crime whether there was trafficking involved or not (e.g. your Australian family can’t threaten you into marrying someone in Australia) Made it slightly easier for victims to receive compensation

Australia, the US and the UK do protect the victims of trafficking… EFFECTIVENESS of AUSTRALIAN LEGAL RESPONSES: Statute Law and Government Policies Australia has contributed over $150 million to efforts to deal with HT since 2003 Australia supports the Asia Regional Trafficking in Persons (ARTIP) program, which trains police, prosecutors and judges in our region to deal with HT Australia is classified as a “Tier 1 Country” in the US State Dept’s TIP Report 2012 (meaning that we are fully COMPLYING with American standards when it comes to fighting HT). Australia, the US and the UK do protect the victims of trafficking… … but the protection of the victim is CONDITIONAL on the victim ASSISTING AUTHORITIES who are prosecuting the people who trafficked them (e.g. they have to testify in court). But the victims of trafficking are often not physically, psychologically or emotionally able to assist authorities in the way they need to in order to get protection from the government (e.g. being able to stay in Australia).

The first conviction for slavery was in R v Wei Tang (2008). AUSTRALIAN LEGAL RESPONSES: Common Law The first conviction for slavery was in R v Wei Tang (2008). There have been multiple convictions since, usually of sex slavery (R v Chee Mei Wong (2013) and R v GD, PK, Baxter & Barnes (2013)) Usually when when people are convicted of serious cases of slavery, the penalties are relatively minor and do not reflect community values, possibly because of a perception that sex workers are partially to blame (e.g. McIvor and Tanuchit (2010) where 5 slaves were kept in a brothel and performed thousands of forced sex acts – each defendant received a minimum non-parole period of 7 years, which is the same as the standard non-parole period for ONE sexual assault). There have been very few CONVICTIONS under the Criminal Code for TRAFFICKING offences (R v Dobie (2009) and R v Trivedi (2011)) because the crime of ‘trafficking’ is difficult to prove.

SUPPORT FOR VICTIMS of HT in Australia: NON-LEGAL RESPONSES: AUSTRALIAN NGOs SUPPORT FOR VICTIMS of HT in Australia: The government gives money to the Red Cross, which then helps the victims. This is called the Support for Trafficked People Program Over the last year, the program has helped a total of 77 victims of HT in Australia. Their support includes: Income support Legal and migration advice, Health services and Counselling.

EFFECTIVENESS of NON-LEGAL RESPONSES: AUSTRALIAN NGOs The Human Rights Law Resource Centre wrote a report about Australia’s compliance with the ICESCR in 2008 which specifically critiqued Australia’s responses to the problem of HT (from a human rights perspective). The Special Rapporteur from the Human Rights Council (remember, the group that checks whether we’re fulfilling our ICCPR obligations?) said that it was good to see the Australian Government working so well with NGOs to help victims of HT.

HT only really gets in the media when there’s a case (e.g. Wei Tang). NON-LEGAL RESPONSES: AUSTRALIAN Media HT only really gets in the media when there’s a case (e.g. Wei Tang). Some articles are very sensationalist (especially when it comes to sex trafficking), rather than delving deeper into the reasons behind, and human rights issued involved with, HT. R v Chee Mei Wong (2013) was a horrible example of this. The Daily Telegraph article reporting her guilty verdict was focused on the “sex acts” performed by the victims. Even the headline of the article included inverted commas around the word ‘forced’, implying that victims of sexual servitude are somehow not really forced (Immigrant Women ‘Forced’ to perform sex acts, Daily Telegraph (2013)) Almost all articles only look at sex trafficking BUT, there is a great Australian Film: ‘The Jammed’ about HT in Australia. There is also a lot more knowledge today about HT because of the media.

Questions Assess the effectiveness of Australia’s response to HT.

HSC questions Q23 2016 paper Q 24 2013 paper