Sex Trafficking in Australia

KIM NGUYEN

What is human trafficking?

Human trafficking is the second largest form of organised crime in the world. It is essentially the“buying and selling of human beings”. The U.N estimates that about 2.5 million people from 127 countries are trafficked around the world, every year. Nearly every country is a source, transit or destination (or combination of these three) for trafficked victims.

Human trafficking occurs in a various industries including: agriculture, hospitality, and sweatshops However, about 80% of  human trafficking cases reported are related to sex slavery and sexual exploitation. This is referred to as “sex trafficking”.

What is sex trafficking?
-Elements of Sex Trafficking:

1. The acts: Recruiting, transporting, and transferring people
2. Means: Threatening or using force, coercing people, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or vulnerability, or giving payments or benefits to a person in control of the victim;

Purpose: Prostituting others, sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, or slavery.

Australia’s role in sex trafficking:                                                                        

We may think that a first-world country like Australia wouldn’t be home to sex trafficking.. But there are traces of this global injustice within our borders. While Australia doesn’t necessarily actively participate, it is still a destination country for people being trafficked.

Between 1000-2000 girls and women are trafficked from countries in South-East Asia (Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea, China) and even Eastern Europe to undertake commercial prostitution in Australia, in brothels, sex shows and online pornography. Often the girls/women have been  cruelly deceived by their recruiting work agencies. They arrive in Australia with the hope of a starting a better life, being able to learn English as a student, working in a restaurant, or at least, earning a high salary in the sex industry.

While some women agree to work in this industry, the majority of them are unaware of the nature and conditions of their work and are forced into prostitution in order to pay off “debts” (airfares, visas)  to the traffickers, which can range from $18,000 – $50,000. They are bought and sold like cattle at auctions and subjected to physical and sexual exploitation by their employers, including rape, torture, starvation, threats of death/harm, if they attempt to seek assistance or to escape. Some girls as young as fourteen and work up to 15 hrs a day, 7 days a week, servicing up to ten men per shift, even while they’re ill.
In just the first two months, a girl would have serviced, on average, 400 men.

A Thai woman who was recently rescued from a brothel in St Kilda explained that “[w]hat happened to us was a nightmare, we worked from 11am to 4am and only slept 3-4 hours a night. They treated us like animals. We were sexually abused, we were dragged, we were hit. Some of us were given drugs so we could work all the time. The traffickers threatened us, we were scared, they could hurt us and our families.”

Why it’s happening:

-Lack of accountability:
There are still dozens of unlicensed and unidentified brothels operating around Melbourne, including Richmond and St Kilda as well around Australia that are involved in sex trafficking.  In some cases, residents living near those venues are aware that there are women are being abused. However, many of them choose not report this to the police because they don’t want to be involved and they fear reprisals.

-Lack of prosecution:
Since 2004, the Australian Federal Police have undertaken 112 investigations and have charged 29 people for sex trafficking. Of these, 15 of the cases are still being heard in the courts, whereas in the other 14 cases, there were mistrials and charges were dropped due to “insufficient evidence.” This means the perpetrators have not only escaped punishment for their crimes, but they are allowed back into our communities to continue trafficking and exploiting women.

-Lack of protection:
According to a study conducted by the University of Sydney, although there is a support program for trafficked women, the services are poorly funded, uncoordinated and lacking in numerous resources. Under this program, all victims are only granted protection for 45 days. From then on, they have to cooperate with the police to prosecute the traffickers in order to be eligible for support services. Basically, if a woman is considered not a reliable witness by the police, then no government help is provided at all. Some are deported back to their country, where they face the likelihood of being ostracised by their families and village communities as well as being exploited and re-trafficked.  Some women are simply left to fend for themselves, They are isolated and alone, barely able to speak English and are dependent on the assistance of NGOS and religious groups.

Why should we care?

Sex-trafficking violates human rights.

The Australian government and the community need to take greater measures to protect these vulnerable women. Women should not be bought and sold like commodities.

Every woman should have the right to feel safe and be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their ethnic background and regardless of the amount of time or their reasons for being in Australia.

Australia has a moral obligation to eradicate this trade of human misery and degradation and to protect victims, in order to address the international problem of trafficking.

Fundamentally, it is our moral obligation as human beings to put an end to this.

Sexual exploitation and slavery is happening in our country, in our communities and in our streets – except the victims are hidden. It is time we made some noise to reach out and find them.

SOURCES:

http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/australia

http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/its-time-to-get-serious-about-sex-trafficking-in-australia-20111012-1lkzi.html

http://www.smh.com.au/national/sex-trafficking-slavery-and-forced-marriage-on-the-rise-in-australia-say-police-20141030-11e62z.html

http://www.antislavery.org.au/resources/fact-sheets/96-fact-sheet-7-australias-legal-response-to-human-trafficking.html

http://campaign.worldvision.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Trafficking-and-sexual-exploitation-fact-sheet.pdf

 

NAIDOC is only the beginning…

GENEVIEVE HUGHES

With NAIDOC (National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee) Week almost over and the issue of indigenous constitutional recognition in the minds of parliamentarians, now is a good time to re-examine some of the cultural and historical achievements of Australia’s indigenous peoples.

The theme for NAIDOC week 2015 is Uluru – an iconic and sacred Australian site. 2015 marks the 30^th anniversary since Uluru was given back to the traditional owners of the land. Not only a popular tourist icon, Uluru, as a sacred site can be held as a symbol of the timeless connection between Aboriginals and the land of Australia.

On July 6^th, the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader met with around forty of Australia’s most influential indigenous representatives to discuss a possible referendum that will, if successful, alter the preamble of Australia’s constitution to recognise indigenous Australians as the original custodians of the land. The change is intended to build mutual trust between Aboriginals and other Australians, however the Prime Minister has stated that the referendum will not be finalised until July 2016. With apparent bipartisan support, hopefully, the referendum will be successful.

Arguments that Indigenous recognition in the constitution is merely symbolic and will not bring about any practical benefits to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders are not unmerited: 200 years of distrust and discrimination cannot be salvaged solely with a non-discrimination clause. However, indigenous recognition is, at the very least, a step in the right direction.

Prominent indigenous activist, Noel Pearson has identified four hurdles in the pursuit of constitutional recognition: “The first hurdle is the Prime Minister and what he’s prepared to run with, secondly the party room, thirdly the Parliament … and the fourth hurdle is the people. In my view, the people are the lowest hurdle, they are a profoundly difficult hurdle to overcome and get onside.” Social justice commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, Mick Gooda has expressed concerns that indigenous recognition will never be realised.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has faced criticism regarding this issue; his credibility has been challenged after his statement that Aborigines living in remote, isolated communities have exercised a “lifestyle choice”. Such a fundamental lack of sensitivity regarding the debilitating and lasting difficulties of cultural assimilation and isolation, is contradictory to the Prime Minister’s claim that he is “prepared to sweat blood” in order for this amendment to made as quickly as possible.

For the Australian people, NAIDOC week remains an important tool in breaking down barriers between Indigenous culture and Australian culture. In March 2015, the Guardian published a study which indicated 73% support for constitutional recognition, and 82% support for the removal of clauses that discriminate on the basis of race. Keeping indigenous cultural achievement and history in the public consciousness will be integral in the passing of this referendum.

 

 

 

 

 

‘No’ to Death Penalty but ‘Yes’ to Inhumane Treatment of Asylum Seekers? Make Up Your Mind Australia!

CELIA DOWLING

IN CASE you have been living under a rock or simply hiding from the news these past couple of weeks, here is a quick run-down on what is now known as ‘The Bali 9 Execution’.

It was just two weeks ago when two Australian citizens faced the firing squad under a state-sanctioned execution, having been convicted ten years ago of organising the smuggling of heroin from Bali to Australia. In the lead-up to Wednesday April 29, Julie Bishop and multiple human rights activists pushed for the clemency of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran through appealing to Indonesia’s humanitarian responsibilities and presenting the significant rehabilitation of the two. Each denounced the Indonesian government for their use of capital punishment, saying that it broke international law. However, their efforts came to no avail.

Now, the Abbott government is being encouraged to take action on its objection to the death penalty. And it certainly looks like they shall, with the PM withdrawing the Australian ambassador to Indonesia after Julie Bishop stated “there will be have to be consequences” directed at the Indonesian government.

HOWEVER, before jumping on the band wagon with the rest of the world to fight for the upholding of human dignity, we must stop and analyse what grounds AUSTRALIA has for calling out the faults of other countries.

Let’s face it, we don’t have the greatest track record when it comes to the treatment of humans.

In the late 1700s, European settlers used disease, massacre and kidnapping to shrink the Indigenous population in Australia by 90%. In the mid 1800s, wealthy citizens and governors condemned the labour force by implementing severe and exclusive gold mining taxes, culminating in fatal battle of the Eureka Stockade. In the early to mid 1900s, the Immigration Restriction Act (otherwise known as the White Australia Policy) impeded certain European and in particular Asian immigrants from entering into the Australian community.

And now, Australia’s asylum seeker policies are being challenged internationally through their breaching of multiple human rights conventions.

It is a tad awkward.

It is a tad awkward that Australian human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson has called for the United Nations (UN) to intervene in Indonesia’s practice of the death penalty, when the same UN has recently expressed its concern to the Australian government on the indefinite and inhuman sentencing of asylum seekers to detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru. It is a tad awkward that post-executions, the government announced that “[w]e do deplore what’s been done and this cannot be simply business as usual”, when Australia’s own routine of locking away children and subjecting them to torture is in itself deplorable. It is a tad awkward that Tony Abbott replied to the accusations of breaching the UN Convention Against Torture saying “I really think Australians are sick of being lectured to by the United Nations,” despite clearly encouraging the UN’s distaste of Indonesia’s death penalty.

Just a tad awkward, I say, in a tone saturated with sarcasm.

In order to better visualise how Australia’s claim against the death penalty is thwarted by hypocrisy, let’s compare notes on how Indonesia’s capital punishment breaches differ from those of Australia’s asylum seeker policies.

 

	INDONESIA ~ capital punishment	AUSTRALIA ~ asylum seeker policy
Breach of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which both countries are signatories.	The initial covenant stated that capital punishment should only be used for “the most serious crimes, that is, those involving intentional killing, and only after a fair trial.” Not drug trafficking.	Arbitrary detention is prohibited. Australia’s “turn back” policy and the mandatory yet often indefinite onshore/offshore detention of asylum seekers are in violation of these principles.
Breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which both countries are signatories.	–	As of February 2014, there were 929 children held in onshore and offshore detention centres as complying with Australian law, for time periods averaging over 8 months. This is despite that Article 37 of the convention says that “no child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily… The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.”
Breach of the UN Convention Against Torture to which both countries are signatories.	After a prolonged period of imprisonment on death row, it is improper to carry out execution as “the constant alternation of hope with despair [amounts] to mental torture, and [is] contrary to the convention on torture.”	“Torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment is prohibited.” However asylum seekers held in detention centres particularly on Manus Island and Nauru are subject to harsh conditions and frequent outbreaks of violence. UN Committee says in a report that “the combination of … harsh conditions, the protracted periods of closed detention and uncertainty about the future reportedly creates serious physical and mental pain and suffering.”
Amnesty International’s response.	They do not approve of the executions, calling them “cruel, senseless and abhorrent”.	They are encouraging a “call on the Australian Government to release all children from immigration detention,” appalled by the physical and psychological damage done to children.
Human Rights Commission report ‘The Forgotten Children’ conducted by Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs	–	Children as young as 12 observe high levels of violence, partake in self-harming and are found to be experiencing substantial issues regarding mental health.
Other responses.	“The international community must renew its resolve to rid the world of this barbaric practice.”Australian opposition leader Bill Shorten and shadow foreign minister Tanya Plibersek in their released statement, 2015 post-executions. “Investigations by human rights groups have found that individuals sentenced to death have been tortured and forced to sign police investigation reports. Many did and do not have lawyers, in particular after arrest and during interrogation,” Researcher Papang Hidayat in a global report on capital punishment, 2015.	“Its own human rights track record is increasingly tarnished by a willingness to violate human rights for domestic political gain.” The Human Rights Law Centre, June 201 “The minister’s powers are outside the ‘rule of law’, they are beyond appeal. He has the powers of a tyrant… It presents a destruction of democratic process.” Former Australian PM Malcolm Fraser, 2014. “Claims are not processed in a fair, transparent, or expedient manner, with significant cost to detainees.” Human Rights Watch, 2015.

 

Clearly, each government perceives a different issue to be a threat to the nation’s security, with or without good reason. For Australia, it’s the trickle of immigrants who flee persecution and can only afford the services of leaky boats. And for Indonesia, it’s drug traffickers. Unfortunately, due to instilled fear and systematic tradition, these habits of disrespecting the dignity of human life are so ingrained into political proceedings, making them difficult to suddenly abolish.

This comparison gives us an insight into the complexity of diplomacy and the unfortunately multiple ways by which governments violate basic human rights to maintain control and public interest.

What is most important to understand is that the legitimacy of any humanitarian claim made by Australia is doomed to be heavily doubted until we start rolling up our sleeves and correcting our own faults. How is any international committee or foreign government supposed to thoroughly consider our objection to an issue such as capital punishment, when we condemn to live in discomfort helpless people yearning for security?

 

Terms and definitions:

Bali 9: 9 Australians with heroin strapped to their bodies were caught boarding an Australia-bound flight in Indonesian customs in Bali, October 23, 2004.

State-sanctioned: approved of by the government of an organised political nation.

Julie Bishop: Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs; deputy of the Liberal Party.

Clemency: mercy; pardon.

Humanitarian: concerned with human rights, human welfare.

Rehabilitation: the restoration of previous privileges and rights of a person, usually after spending time in prison.

Capital punishment: punishment for a crime by death.

Coalition: a temporary alliance of political parties (for example, Liberal and Labour) formed through combined action.

Tony Abbott: Australia’s Prime Minister, leader of the Liberal Party.

Ambassador: someone sent by a nation or territory to represent them in another country.

Convention: an agreement between states, similar to a treaty, on a specific issue.

Barrister: a type of lawyer, often an advocate for common law and often in the higher courts

United Nations (UN): International Human Rights Council.

Signatory: a party (especially a state) that has signed an agreement, obliging them to uphold the responsibilities of the said agreement.

Protocol: a procedure or system of rules agreed upon to govern affairs or action

Arbitrarily: basing on random choice or spontaneity as opposed to reason.

Diplomacy: managing international relations.

 

Resources 17.05.2015

___________________________________________________________________________

1. Indonesia’s Death Penalty Or Australia’s Asylum Policy.” 17 May. 2015 <http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexlee/indonesias-death-penalty-or-australias-asylum-policy>
2.  “Hard line on refugees undermines principled opposition to …” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://theconversation.com/hard-line-on-refugees-undermines-principled-opposition-to-execution-40953>
3. “Geoffrey Robertson calls on Australian government to use …” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/geoffrey-robertson-calls-on-australian-government-to-use-international-law-to-save-andrew-chan-and-myuran-sukumaran-20150428-1mvgxe.html>
4.  “UN finds Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers violates the …” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://hrlc.org.au/un-finds-australias-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-violates-the-convention-against-torture/>
5. “The story of the Bali Nine: How two Australians … – Mashable.” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://mashable.com/2015/04/28/indonesia-bali-nine-australians/>
6.”Bali 9 duo’s execution ‘will have consequences’ says … – ABC.” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4225605.htm>
7. “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” 2013. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx>
8. “Act now: Speak up for kids in detention – Amnesty …” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/36905/>
9.  “From The United Nations | Death Penalty Information Center.” 2008. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/united-nations>
10.   “Children in detention: Is Australia breaching international law?.” 2014. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/children-in-detention-is-australia-breaching-international-law/5344022>
11. “Australia’s detention of refugees is forbidden by …” 2014. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-detention-of-refugees-is-forbidden-by-international-law-un-committee-against-torture-20141128-11wjas.html>

The Rich Are Becoming the Rich: Education & Equality

GENEVIEVE HUGHES

I remember how stressful it was, Year Twelve, university applications, imagining over and over again what would happen, what would I do with my life if I didn’t get the right marks for my course?
I could apply for another course.
I could defer for a year.
I could get a job, move out, and lead a perfectly happy life – because that is my choice.
But what about the people who didn’t choose to miss out on a tertiary education?

 The choice of going to University

University is an opportunity that should be available to everyone, regardless of whether one chooses to attend. The case for attending university has never been stronger; from sociology to biomechanics, fine arts and literature to medicine and engineering, you can study almost anything at university. Add this with the promise of new friends and travelling opportunities, many if not most young people want to attend. Ultimately, university can help a young person provide a better life for themselves and their family members.

The Finances
University tuitions have also never been more expensive. This can hit families of lower socio-economic backgrounds very hard, forcing them to make the decision to refute tertiary education for their children. Even with scholarships provided for students from marginalised backgrounds, average working class families struggle to finance tertiary educations.

At the University of Western Australia, a six-year medicine degree costs approximately $60,000 dollars and a five year law degree costs $51,000.
Even with HECS-HELP in place, graduates spend years paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in university fees and from 2016, HECS-HELP will only be available to domestic students.

This will leave many international students, unable to attend university in Australia, and many domestic students choosing their undergraduate course based on tuition costs.

Where is the inequality?

Finances are not the only issue here.
The inequalities between high schools should also be considered: many private schools are funded not only by religious institutions but by federal and state governments. Parents of students attending private schools also pay tuitions that can range up to $22,000 a year, per student.

The problem exists here: teachers are paid more in private schools, therefore many teachers choose to work in private institutions, leaving students in government schools disadvantaged and public school teachers grossly underpaid.

This leaves the educational experiences of young people wholly unequal during high school, thus affecting their acceptance into university.

The problem with inequality in education

There are a number of factors that influence a student’s performance in exams, the most essential being the effort a student puts in to achieve good marks.

But what about the things we don’t like to talk about?

Of the fifty highest-ranking schools in Victoria – 39 are privately funded. Of these, 35 are also funded by religious institutions.

Many people will argue that a student’s performance in exams depends entirely on them – this is not the case.

With such discernable financial inequalities between independent schools and government schools, it does not seem so surprising that a student’s performance at school, and subsequently their tertiary opportunities are primarily determined by their post-code, and the level of education their parents received.

In the United States, the College Board/Next America Poll found that students were more likely to attend university if their parents had attended university.

This “intergenerational transmission of class” is true of Australia also.

On a global scale

Inequality in education is an international issue.
Education is the tool for socio-economic mobility; therefore it is important that educational experiences, at the very least, are equal for all students. In an interview with Jon Stewart, Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai stated that education teaches equality “because students are provided the same benches, they sit equally”.

If Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Malala Yousafzai believes that students should sit equally – then we need to ensure that they do.