Australian brothels and sexual slavery

In 2004 the Commonwealth introduced three new visas for which victims could apply: the Bridging visa, the Criminal Justice Stay visa and the Witness Protection visa, all of which allow people to remain in the country but only for the period of criminal justice proceedings.

Put another way, the Australian Government is asking these women to testify against their exploiters and then forcing them to return to a country where their own lives and those of their families would be in serious danger. This is not protection we are offering them, except in the sense implied by the term “protection racket”.

How different is it - morally - from the attitude of the traffickers who discard their victims once they’re no longer pretty, or are too diseased to continue work?

For obvious reasons, many - let’s say the vast majority - of women are terrified of giving evidence against their traffickers. In any case, not a single witness protection visa was granted in 2003-04, according to the latest official figures from the Department of Immigration.

Surprisingly, in this area the Australian Government seems reluctant to follow the lead of the US Department of State. The first recommendation of the department’s 2003 “Pathbreaking Strategies in the Global Fight Against Sex Trafficking” conference is that governments should:

Pass comprehensive national anti-trafficking laws that prosecute traffickers and provide for the safety and privacy of the victim, proper representation in court, access to medical care, social assistance, compensation for damages, and the right to seek and receive residency. (Emphasis added.)

In the department’s 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report (foreword by Condoleezza Rice), Australia is commended for complying with “the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking”. But the report also suggests: “The government should consider expanding its protection efforts to cover victims who co-operate with the police but who are not part of a viable investigation.”

In this regard, it is instructive to consider Italy’s approach to the question. Here, there is a policy not only of comprehensive victim protection, but also integration into the general community. In 2004 alone, the Italian Government oversaw 69 projects to assist 8,600 women victims. Some 1,940 victims, including 118 children, entered social protection programs. And others were provided with training in literacy and vocational training. This is unconditional protection, based on solid humanitarian principles.

But of equal, if not greater, interest is that this compassionate approach has gone hand in glove with an increased rate of arrests and convictions of the traffickers themselves - with several smuggling rings detected and broken.

Such a result is not surprising. People are obviously more likely to co-operate with the authorities if they do not fear or know they are about to be deported - and if they have a support network in the wider community.

In other words, what the Italian policy demonstrates is that, in this particular area, what is morally right coincides with what is politically and legally effective. A very unusual combination. But one from which Australia just might learn.

There is, of course, an obvious objection. Discussing Australia’s existing arrangements, where temporary visas are contingent on giving evidence, Federal Justice Minister Senator Chris Ellison has said, “That is something which we support but it can't be used as a back-door method of getting into Australia”.