Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (4.08 p.m.)—The Criminal Code Amendment (Trafficking in Persons Offences) Bill 2005 is important legislation, and it is fully supported by the opposition. It is, as the Attorney-General indicated, about the protection of the vulnerable and, in the various instances that the Attorney-General outlined, indeed provides for additional penalties if children are involved. Trafficking, as the Attorney-General indicated, is not a new crime but it is becoming more prevalent as the world increasingly opens up borders towards the freer movement of goods and people. As we globalise, so do the criminals. Criminal activity is never more reprehensible than when it exploits the vulnerable.

Sex trafficking, in particular, is a serious problem throughout the European Community, where unscrupulous gangs are preying on vulnerable women from countries in eastern Europe and Russia—countries which are still suffering economic decline—for use as sex slaves. In the United Kingdom, even, the Solicitor General—and I assume it is still the same Solicitor General—has stated that an estimated 80 per cent of prostitutes in London are foreign. As she says, the idea that these women have chosen to sell sex is clearly wrong, indicating that there is pressure on them. Recently, too, the United States Department of State identified the possible emergence of sex trafficking in Singapore, despite that country having what we would regard as a very strong law-enforcement culture.

It is also clearly a problem in Australia. There is debate as to how extensive that problem is; nonetheless, it is clearly a problem. Women who are trafficked as sex slaves often work illegally, possibly with the wrong type of visa or even with no visa at all. Regrettably, in the past some criminals may have escaped prosecution because immigration officials deported the victims of these crimes before they could give evidence. These measures, at least partly, as well as a change in culture will do a considerable amount to prevent that occurring in the future. The bottom line is that even if this bill were only to stop one woman or one child from enduring the horrors of being trafficked as a sex slave, it would still be worth while. If properly enforced—and I accept the government’s commitment—it will of course be far more effective than that.

The provisions relating to the trafficking in persons offences are not limited exclusively to trafficking for the purpose of sexual services but also include trafficking in instances where someone is using force or the threat of force to achieve the entry or receipt of a person into Australia. This bill would also, for example, make deceptive conduct in recruiting a person to work in the sex industry illegal and punishable by imprisonment of seven years, or nine years for an aggravated offence.

The offence of debt bondage is also introduced and is a most welcome measure. Again, we welcome the fact that in the case of minors there are additional penalties. Debt bondage measures will cover all workers no matter what industry they are in. Debt bondage is effectively serfdom, where a person is so economically dependent on another because of indebtedness that they are deprived of their freedom to work elsewhere. We have seen this insidious phenomenon in the actions of people smugglers who, it has been reported, frequently paid the passage of people to Australia only to make them economically dependent—effectively placing them in a situation of debt bondage for some years while they paid off the debt for that transportation to Australia. We have also seen unscrupulous employers who have effectively resurrected the concept of serfdom in Australia, taking advantage of vulnerable citizens—all too frequently noncitizens from South-East Asia, in particular. Poverty has driven those people to move to Australia perhaps unlawfully, and the mere fact of their unlawfulness has made them the most vulnerable.

The bill significantly strengthens existing laws to enable enforcement agencies to deal with some of these transnational scourges. There are already clearly a number of people-smuggling offences in the Migration Act and in the Criminal Code. For example, the Migration Act includes the offence of bringing an unlawful noncitizen or a group of such persons to Australia. There are also further offences that have been added to the Criminal Code with the passage of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (People Smuggling, Firearms Trafficking and Other Measures) Act 2002. These offences apply to what might be called international smuggling—for example, to the smuggling of people into a foreign country, whether or not via Australia.

The new people-smuggling offences are in general based on the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, which has been called ‘the smuggling protocol’. While many people all too frequently attack the role of the United Nations—and it was a mantra of the One Nation Party—the reality is that it has played an important role in combating international crime generally and also the phenomenon of people-smuggling. To combat the growing phenomenon of transnational crime, the United Nations adopted a Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which was supplemented by the United Nations Trafficking Protocol. The government has indicated its intention to ratify the UN Trafficking Protocol once this legislation is in place and the requirements of the protocol are brought into effect. We commend that course of action.

The bill was derived from a transnational response to organised crime. Some years ago the United Nations adopted a Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Australia signed in 2000. Out of that convention, a protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, was established. It was signed by Australia in 2002. Not only are those international treaties and protocols relevant to the background of the legislation but valuable work was undertaken more recently by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, which has a statutory responsibility to examine trends and changes in the method and practice of criminal activity.

The joint committee’s report, Inquiry into the trafficking of women for sexual servitude, made nine recommendations to the government. Those recommendations included a review of the adequacy of existing provisions in the Criminal Code dealing with the recruitment, transportation and transfer of women for the purpose of trafficking; an amendment to section 270.7 of the Criminal Code, which deals with deceptive recruiting for sexual services, to broaden the offence to include deception regarding the kind of services to be provided, whether of a sexual nature or not; and that all trafficked women accepted onto the victims support program or receiving the criminal justice stay visa be exempt from compulsory return to their country of origin. This is an important measure to adopt that culture. All too frequently, the deportation process occurred before the criminal investigation process could be completed.

By way of some complaint, we do believe that there has been inadequate consultation to properly implement this regime. Ordinarily bills that create or amend federal crimes are referred to the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. That is obviously for good reason. The aim of that Model Criminal Code Officers Committee is to develop uniform national criminal laws. If the Commonwealth does something that impacts on or has the potential to impact on the criminal law of the states, then it is obviously very important to consult with those state governments. But we understand this did not happen in respect of this bill, at least in its genesis. We hope greater consultation has occurred more recently. We note in particular that this bill is primarily directed towards preventing the trafficking of women and children for the purpose of prostitution. The government chose, at least originally, not to consult with the very level of government that regulates prostitution and we hope that has been redressed. Indeed, we think broader consultation with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission would also have been appropriate, given the vulnerabilities of those the legislation is intended to protect.

That lack of consultation has been remedied somewhat by the Senate committee process, instigated by Labor. I do not recall our being criticised by the government in instigating that committee process. Again I flag the very valuable work of the parliamentary committee system and in particular of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, which made 13 substantive recommendations in relation to the bill. Seven of the recommendations have now been incorporated into the bill, and Labor welcomes these additional measures. A further two measures were partially adopted by the government, while three measures have been rejected.

Recommendation 8 in the committee’s report should be flagged for further attention. It relates to the inclusion of servile marriage in the bill. However, it was recognised that this may have been beyond the scope of the bill because its effect in relation to the Marriage Act is unclear. Labor also accepts that this recommendation of the committee is perhaps too large in its effect to be accommodated in the bill, but it is a topic that should be further examined. We reserve the right to determine whether this type of conduct should be made illegal and, if so, by what means. I think most members who have served in this House will have seen at some time in their electoral offices situations of real concern with respect to compelled marriages. In noting our concern, we should respect cultures and cultural practices, but all cultures in turn—in accordance with international human rights standards that apply to all human beings—should respect the fundamental and equal dignity of every man and, in particular, every woman in respect of the choice of married partner.

A further recommendation that also requires future examination is the inclusion of non-commercial exploitation of adults. The government has put it to the opposition that, while this may be amoral, it is not desirable or practicable to make that conduct illegal. We recognise there are some arguments to that effect, and we do recognise the complexities, but we nonetheless think that this matter should be explored further. We do not want to hold up these other important and significant measures contained in this legislation for the sake of this one recommendation given, as the Attorney-General indicated, that the non-commercial exploitation of children has been criminalised in the legislation.

The majority of recommendations from the committee are supported by both sides of parliament and have been incorporated in the bill. I will not list them—they are obviously on the public record—but, significantly, they include among their number three measures: the inclusion of non-commercial exploitation of children—as I have indicated, significantly adopted; the inclusion of the offence of debt bondage, which I have described, as did the Attorney-General in his second reading speech; and the strengthening of the criminal definitions and extension of the Crimes Act to offences against division 271 of the trafficking legislation.

In addition, the government has added new offences to cover instances of trafficking from Australia to other countries. This is a commonsense measure and is supported by the opposition. The government has also increased the maximum sentence for trafficking in children, as the Attorney indicated, from 22 to 25 years to bring it into line with slavery offences. Again, given the extreme vulnerability of children, it is something that we applaud.

There are, however, two amendments that Labor would like to pursue and we will be doing so. They are, firstly, an amendment to ensure that section 270.7(1A)(c)(ii) and section 271.8(2)(c)(ii) cover instances where trafficking victims are deceived in a language other than English. We think that this is a commonsense measure that all members of the House would support. We also have an amendment for the purpose of enabling victim impact statements so that the victims of this disgraceful crime can have their say in court after a conviction is handed down. We think these measures are important. In particular, the opportunity for victim statements has become an important part of the modern criminal justice system. Labor would like to see this become a part of the court process, with the choice of participating at the discretion of the victim. We will move these amendments in the Senate process and therefore commend this bill to the House.