Coronavirus (COVID-19) Updates

Complaints

Protection of the rights of the child in the context of migration (2010)

Legal Legal

Protection of the rights of the child in the context of migration

Information provided by the Australian Human Rights Commission to the OHCHR
study on challenges and best practices in the implementation of the
international framework for the protection of the rights of the child in the
context of migration

April 2010

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

  1. The Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) is Australia’s
    national human rights institution, established by the Australian Human Rights
    Commission Act 1986     (Cth).

  2. The Commission provides the enclosed information to the Office of the United
    Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in order to contribute to its
    study on challenges and best practices in the implementation of the
    international framework for the protection of the rights of the child in the
    context of migration.

  3. The Commission provides this information in response to the request received
    from the OHCHR in February 2010 for relevant information for the preparation of
    this study, including on:

    • Challenges in the implementation of the international framework for the
      protection of the rights of the child in the context of migration, including in
      relation to:

      • The situation of separated and unaccompanied migrant children.

      • Access to social services (ensuring, inter alia, protection of the
        right to health, housing, education, water and access to sanitation), including
        for migrant children in an irregular situation.

      • Legislative framework and practice in the context of detention and
        repatriation, including mechanisms to ensure protection from refoulement and to ensure family unity.

      • Criminalisation of irregular migration.

      • Access to the right to identity, including birth registration.

      • Protection of children left behind in countries of
        origin.

    • Examples of best practice in the implementation of the international
      framework for the protection of the rights of the child in the context of
      migration, with particular regard to:

      • National legislation, policies and practice, including mechanisms
        to assess and address the challenges in the implementation of the international
        framework for the protection of the rights of the child in the context of
        migration.

      • Joint efforts and strategies available at the bilateral, regional
        and international levels to assess and address challenges in the implementation
        of the international framework for the protection of the rights of the child in
        the context of migration.

      • The work of national human rights institutions and other relevant
        stakeholders.

2 Summary

  1. The Commission welcomes the opportunity to contribute information for the
    preparation of this study. The Commission’s comments focus on the
    situation in Australia, and are generally limited to those specific areas on
    which the Commission has undertaken direct work.

  2. The Commission’s comments focus on the following areas:

    • the legislative framework and practice relating to the immigration detention
      of children (accompanied and unaccompanied)

    • mechanisms to ensure protection from refoulement

    • human trafficking.

  3. Where relevant, the Commission’s comments raise concerns about key
    challenges, and refer to examples of positive practices or developments.
    References are also provided to relevant work carried out by the Commission, as
    Australia’s national human rights institution.

3 Immigration detention
of children

3.1 Background:
Mandatory immigration detention

  1. Australia has a legislative system of mandatory immigration detention. Under
    the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), it is mandatory for any non-citizen in
    Australia (other than in an excised offshore
    place[1]) without a valid visa to be
    detained.[2] These persons, called
    ‘unlawful non-citizens’ under the Migration Act, may only be
    released from detention if they are granted a visa or removed from
    Australia.[3]

  2. The Commission has long opposed Australia’s system of mandatory
    immigration detention because it leads to breaches of Australia’s
    obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
    Rights     (ICCPR) to ensure that no one is arbitrarily detained, and to
    breaches of Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights
    of the Child     (CRC).[4]

  3. While detention may be acceptable for a short period in order to
    conduct security, identity and health checks, currently Australian law requires
    detention for unspecified purposes, for an unlimited period of time, and in the
    absence of judicial review of the need to detain an individual.

  4. Because of its significant concerns about the mandatory detention system and
    its impacts on the human rights of detained persons (in particular children),
    the Commission has undertaken ongoing work in this area for more than a decade.
    This work has included:

    • investigating complaints made by individuals regarding alleged breaches of
      their human rights while in immigration
      detention[5]

    • conducting two national inquiries, namely A last resort? National Inquiry
      into Children in Immigration Detention       (2004)[6] and Those who’ve come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised
      arrivals       (1998)[7]

    • conducting inspections of immigration detention facilities and issuing
      public reports of those
      inspections[8]

    • examining proposed legislation and making submissions to parliamentary
      inquiries[9]

    • reviewing and providing comments on Australian Government policies related
      to immigration, when requested to do so

    • developing the Immigration Detention Guidelines, based on relevant
      international standards relating to the treatment and conditions of detained
      persons.[10]

  5. Further information about the Commission’s work in this area can be
    found on the Commission’s immigration, asylum seekers and refugees web
    page    .[11]

3.2 A
last resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention

  1. Prior to 2005, hundreds of children and their family members were detained
    in immigration detention centres in Australia, many of which were located in
    remote locations. These numbers reached a peak in 1999-2000 when as many as 1923
    children were detained. Most of these children had arrived by boat with their
    family members and were seeking asylum. Some of the children had arrived
    unaccompanied.

  2. The Commission was gravely concerned about the human rights of these
    children. In 2002 and 2003, the Commission undertook a national inquiry into the
    situation of children in immigration detention. This culminated in the 2004
    release of A last resort?, the report of the National Inquiry into
    Children in Immigration
    Detention.[12]

  3. The inquiry found that Australia’s immigration detention system was
    fundamentally inconsistent with the
    CRC.[13] In particular, the system
    failed to ensure that:

    • detention is a measure of last resort, for the shortest appropriate period
      of time and subject to effective independent
      review[14]

    • the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all actions
      concerning children[15]

    • children are treated with humanity and respect for their inherent
      dignity[16]

    • children seeking asylum receive appropriate assistance to enjoy, to the
      maximum extent possible, their right to development and their right to live in
      an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of children in
      order to ensure recovery from past torture and
      trauma.[17]

  4. In addition, the inquiry found that:

    • children in immigration detention for long periods of time were at high risk
      of serious mental harm

    • the failure of the Australian Government (of the time) to implement the
      repeated recommendations by mental health professionals that certain children be
      removed from the detention environment with their parents amounted to cruel,
      inhumane and degrading treatment of those
      children.[18]

  5. Further, the inquiry found that, at various times between 1999 and 2002,
    children in immigration detention were not in a position to fully enjoy the
    following rights:[19]

    • the right to be protected from all forms of physical or mental
      violence[20]

    • the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
      health[21]

    • the right of children with disabilities to enjoy a full and decent life, in
      conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the
      child's active participation in the
      community[22]

    • the right to an appropriate education on the basis of equal
      opportunity[23]

    • the right of unaccompanied children to receive special protection and
      assistance to ensure the enjoyment of all rights under the
      CRC.[24]

  6. In A last resort?, the Commission recommended that children in
    immigration detention centres and immigration residential housing projects
    should be released with their parents as soon as possible through transfer into
    the community (home-based detention); the exercise of Ministerial discretion to
    grant humanitarian visas; or the grant of bridging
    visas.[25]

  7. Further, the Commission recommended that Australia's immigration detention
    laws should be amended, as a matter of urgency, to comply with the CRC. In
    particular, the new laws should incorporate the following minimum features:

    • There should be a presumption against the detention of children for
      immigration purposes.

    • A court or independent tribunal should assess whether there is a need to
      detain children for immigration purposes within 72 hours of any initial
      detention (for example, for the purposes of health, identity or security
      checks).

    • There should be prompt and periodic review by a court of the legality of
      continuing detention of children for immigration purposes.

    • All courts and independent tribunals should be guided by the following
      principles:

      • detention of children must be a measure of last resort and for the
        shortest appropriate period of time

      • the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration

      • the preservation of family unity

      • special protection and assistance for unaccompanied children.

    • Bridging visa regulations for unauthorised arrivals should be amended so as
      to provide a readily available mechanism for the release of children and their
      parents.[26]

  8. In addition, the Commission recommended that an independent guardian should
    be appointed for unaccompanied children and they should receive appropriate
    support; minimum standards of treatment for children in immigration detention
    should be codified in legislation; and there should be a review of the impact on
    children of legislation that created 'excised offshore places' and the 'Pacific
    Solution'.[27]

3.3 Positive
changes since A last resort

  1. Since the release of A last resort?, the report of the National
    Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, there have been significant
    improvements in relation to the treatment of children in Australia’s
    immigration detention system.

  2. In 2005, most children and their family members were released from
    Australia’s immigration detention centres, and the Migration Act was
    amended to affirm ‘as a principle’ that a minor should only be
    detained as a measure of last
    resort.[28]

  3. Also in 2005, the Minister for Immigration was granted the power to issue a
    ‘residence determination’ permitting an immigration detainee to live
    at a specified residence in the community instead of in an immigration detention
    facility.[29] This is known as
    ‘community detention’. People in community detention are still
    immigration detainees in a legal sense, but they are not under physical
    supervision. They are generally free to come and go, subject to meeting
    conditions such as living at a specified address, reporting to the Department of
    Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) on a regular basis, and refraining from
    engaging in paid work or a formal course of
    study.[30]

  4. Since these changes, children and their family members have generally not
    been detained in Australia’s immigration detention
    centres.[31] The current Australian
    Government has made a firm policy commitment that children, and where possible,
    their families will not be detained in an immigration detention centre. Having
    witnessed the serious impacts on children and their families of prolonged
    detention in immigration detention centres, the Commission has welcomed these
    developments.

  5. Now, some children are either issued with a bridging visa to reside in the
    community while their immigration status is resolved, or they are placed in
    community detention. In the Commission’s view, children should be issued
    with bridging visas. However, in the event that a child is taken into
    immigration detention, the Commission believes that community detention is the
    most appropriate arrangement. It is highly preferable to being held in an
    immigration detention centre.

  6. The Commission has welcomed other positive reforms since the current
    Australian Government came into power in late 2007. In early 2008, the
    Commission commended the government for ending the so-called ‘Pacific
    Solution’ by closing the offshore immigration detention centres on Nauru
    and Manus Island. Since then, the government has initiated further reforms, in
    particular the July 2008 announcement of ‘New Directions’ for
    Australia’s immigration detention
    system.[32]

  7. The New Directions include seven key immigration values, as follows:

    1. Mandatory detention is an essential component of strong border control.

    2. To support the integrity of Australia’s immigration program, three
      groups will be subject to mandatory detention:

      1. all unauthorised arrivals, for management of health, identity and security
        risks to the community

      2. unlawful non-citizens who present unacceptable risks to the community
        and

      1. unlawful non-citizens who have repeatedly refused to comply with their visa
        conditions.

    3. Children, including juvenile foreign fishers and, where possible, their
      families, will not be detained in an immigration detention centre.

    4. Detention that is indefinite or otherwise arbitrary is not acceptable and
      the length and conditions of detention, including the appropriateness of both
      the accommodation and the services provided, would be subject to regular
      review.

    5. Detention in immigration detention centres is only to be used as a last
      resort and for the shortest practicable time.

    6. People in detention will be treated fairly and reasonably within the
      law.

    7. Conditions of detention will ensure the inherent dignity of the human
      person.

  8. The Commission welcomed the statement of values 3 to 7, and expressed the
    need for those values to be translated into policy, practice and legislative
    change as soon as possible. Since then, a range of policy changes have been made
    to begin implementation of the New Directions, including the values. However,
    there remains significant progress to be made.

  9. In particular, the values have not yet been implemented in legislation. In
    June 2009 the Australian Government introduced the Migration Amendment
    (Immigration Detention Reform) Bill 2009 (Cth) into Parliament. The stated
    purpose of the Bill was to ‘give legislative effect to the
    Government’s New Directions in Detention
    policy’.[33]

  10. The Commission welcomed the Bill as a positive step, but expressed concern
    that the Bill did not go far enough towards implementing the New Directions,
    including some of the
    values.[34] In particular, the Commission expressed concerns that the Bill did not include
    sufficient protections to ensure that:

    • where possible, children’s family members will not be held in
      immigration detention centres

    • children will only be detained in immigration detention facilities (other
      than immigration detention centres, where they should not be held at all) as a
      measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of
      time.[35]

  11. As of April 2010, the Bill had not been passed.

3.4 Ongoing
challenges

  1. Despite positive reforms over the past five years, the Commission has
    significant ongoing concerns about the treatment of children under
    Australia’s immigration detention system. The Commission’s key
    concerns are summarised briefly below. The Commission’s concerns are set
    out in further detail in recent reports and
    submissions.[36]
(a) Detention
of children in facilities on mainland Australia

  1. As noted above, children are no longer held in Australia’s high
    security immigration detention centres. However, some children are held in other
    types of immigration detention facilities. These include immigration residential
    housing in Sydney and Perth, and immigration transit accommodation in Melbourne
    and Brisbane.[37]

  2. Generally, these facilities provide a much higher standard of accommodation
    than the immigration detention centres. They are much newer and have been
    purpose-built. They also have less intrusive security measures. The atmosphere
    tends to be less tense than in the immigration detention centres, and detainees
    are provided with a greater degree of privacy and autonomy.

  3. However, immigration residential housing and immigration transit
    accommodation are still closed immigration detention facilities. People in these
    facilities remain in immigration detention; they are not free to come and
    go.

  4. As of 12 March 2010, there were 44 children in immigration transit
    accommodation and eight children in immigration residential housing on the
    Australian mainland.[38]

  5. The Commission has significant concerns about the ongoing practice of
    holding families with children and unaccompanied minors in these types of
    immigration detention
    facilities.[39] While the physical
    environment is highly preferable to the immigration detention centres, the
    effects of depriving children of their liberty can nevertheless be similar.

  6. In the Commission’s view, families with children and unaccompanied
    minors should not be held in these detention facilities for anything other than
    the briefest of periods. Rather, they should be issued with bridging visas to
    reside in the community while their immigration status is resolved, or placed in
    community detention.

(b) Detention
of children on Christmas Island

  1. The Commission is particularly concerned about the detention of child asylum
    seekers on Christmas Island, a remote territory of Australia located in the
    Indian Ocean.

  2. In 2001, the Migration Act was amended to designate a number of islands,
    including Christmas Island, as ‘excised offshore
    places’.[40] A person who
    becomes an unlawful non-citizen (a non-citizen without a valid visa) by entering
    Australia at such a place is referred to as an ‘offshore entry
    person’.[41]

  3. The purpose of these amendments was to bar offshore entry persons from being
    able to apply for a visa, unless the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
    (the Minister) determines that it is in the public interest to allow them to do
    so.[42] The Migration Act also
    purports to bar them from taking certain legal proceedings in the Australian
    courts, including in relation to the lawfulness of their
    detention.[43]

  4. Under the Migration Act, unlawful non-citizens in excised offshore places may be detained.[44] The
    current policy of the Australian Government is that all ‘unauthorised boat
    arrivals’ in excised offshore places will be subject to mandatory
    detention on Christmas Island. This includes families with children and
    unaccompanied minors.

  5. As of 12 March 2010, there were 1870 people in immigration detention on
    Christmas Island, including 155
    children.[45]

  6. Most unaccompanied minors and families with children in immigration
    detention on Christmas Island are held in a detention facility called the
    ‘construction camp’.[46] The construction camp is not included among the facilities classified by DIAC as
    immigration detention centres. It has a much lower level of security than an
    immigration detention centre, which the Commission welcomes. However, people
    detained in the camp are not free to come and go; they are only permitted to
    leave under escort. Thus, while they are in a low security facility, their
    liberty is severely
    restricted.[47]

  7. In the Commission’s view, the detention of families with children and
    unaccompanied minors in a closed detention facility on Christmas Island
    represents a concerning regression from the 2005 changes to the Migration Act
    which affirmed the principle that children should only be detained as a measure
    of last resort.[48]

  8. The Commission has recommended that the Australian Government cease the
    practice of holding people in immigration detention on Christmas Island, and
    repeal the provisions of the Migration Act relating to excised offshore
    places.[49]

(c) The
need for further legal reforms to protect children’s rights

  1. The Commission remains concerned that Australia’s laws do not provide
    adequate protection for children subject to the immigration detention system. In
    particular:

    • the Migration Act provides insufficient protection against breaches of a
      child’s right to be detained only as a measure of last resort and for the
      shortest appropriate period of time

    • child detainees are not able to challenge their detention in a court or
      other independent authority

    • there are no legislated minimum standards for conditions and treatment of
      children in immigration detention

    • there is a conflict of interest created by having the Minister for
      Immigration act as the legal guardian of unaccompanied minors in immigration
      detention.[50]

  2. The Commission continues to encourage the Australian Government to address
    these concerns by implementing the outstanding recommendations of A last
    resort?    .[51]

3.5 New
developments

  1. On 9 April 2010, the Australian Government announced that it was suspending
    processing of new refugee claims by asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and
    Afghanistan.[52] The suspension came
    into effect on the same day. It will impact any asylum seeker from Sri Lanka or
    Afghanistan who is intercepted at sea or who arrives in an excised offshore
    place (including Christmas Island) on or after that date, and any asylum seeker
    from Sri Lanka or Afghanistan who applies for refugee status on the Australian
    mainland on or after that
    date.[53]

  2. Asylum seekers from Sri Lanka or Afghanistan who arrive by boat on or after
    9 April 2010 will be subjected to mandatory immigration detention for the
    duration of the suspension. This includes unaccompanied minors and families with
    children.

  3. The Australian Government has indicated that it will review the suspension
    in three months time in the case of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, and in six
    months time in the case of asylum seekers from Afghanistan. However, there is no
    guarantee that the suspension will be lifted at those reviews.

  4. The Commission has expressed serious concerns about the suspension
    decision.[54] In particular, the
    Commission is concerned that it could lead to the prolonged or indefinite
    detention of asylum seekers. This is a particular concern in the case of
    unaccompanied minors and families with children.

  5. The Commission will monitor this situation closely and will encourage the
    Australian Government to lift the suspension.

4 Mechanisms to ensure
protection from refoulement

4.1 Non-refoulement
obligations under the Refugee Convention

  1. The Australian Government seeks to implement its non-refoulement obligations under the Refugee Convention through a legislated refugee status
    determination system under the Migration Act. Under this system, asylum seekers
    who are found to be owed Australia's protection under the Refugee Convention,
    and who satisfy health, character and security requirements, are granted a
    permanent protection visa.[55]

  2. This system can be accessed by asylum seekers who arrive on the Australian
    mainland or in any other non-excised part of
    Australia.[56] These asylum
    seekers:

    • are able to submit a valid application for a protection
      visa[57]

    • have access to independent merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal
      (RRT), or in some circumstances the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), if
      they are refused a protection
      visa[58]

    • have limited access to judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court and
      the Federal Court of decisions made by the RRT or the
      AAT.[59]

  3. However, asylum seekers who arrive in excised offshore places are barred
    from accessing the refugee status determination system under the Migration
    Act.[60] Instead, they go through a
    non-statutory refugee status assessment process. This is an administrative
    process governed by policy
    guidelines.[61]

  4. As offshore entry persons, these asylum seekers:

    • are barred by the Migration Act from submitting a valid application for any
      visa, including a protection visa – this only becomes possible if the
      Minister exercises his or her personal discretion to allow an application to be
      submitted[62]

    • do not have access to independent merits review by the RRT or the AAT
      – instead they have access to an Independent Reviewer who conducts a
      review of the initial decision and makes a non-binding recommendation to the
      Minister

    • have very limited access, if any, to judicial review of a decision made by a
      DIAC officer or an Independent Reviewer that the person is not a
      refugee.[63]

  5. The Commission has raised significant concerns about processing the refugee
    claims of asylum seekers who arrive in excised offshore places (including
    unaccompanied minors and families with children) through a separate
    non-statutory process.[64]

  6. The current Australian Government has made significant improvements to this
    process, including by providing asylum seekers on Christmas Island with access
    to publicly funded migration advice under the Immigration Advice and Application
    Assistance Scheme, and access to independent review of negative refugee status
    assessment decisions.

  7. The Commission has welcomed these reforms, and considers them indispensable.
    However, even with these reforms, the Commission has significant concerns about
    the non-statutory refugee status assessment process. These primarily relate to
    the lack of transparent and enforceable procedures for decision-making, and the
    failure to provide sufficient legal safeguards for asylum
    seekers.[65]

  8. In particular, because asylum seekers who arrive in excised offshore places
    are barred from applying for a protection visa, they must rely on the Minister
    exercising his or her personal discretion to lift that
    bar.[66] This discretion is
    non-compellable and non-reviewable. Even if a DIAC officer or an Independent
    Reviewer assesses that a person is a refugee, the Minister is under no
    obligation to consider exercising their discretion to allow the person to apply
    for a protection visa.

  9. In November 2009 the Commission was advised that the current Minister had,
    until that date, exercised his discretion to lift the bar in accordance with the
    recommendations made to him by DIAC officers and Independent Reviewers. The
    Commission welcomes this.

  10. However, in the Commission’s view, a system based on the exercise of a
    non-compellable and non-reviewable Ministerial discretion does not provide
    adequate legal safeguards for asylum seekers, including those who are
    children.

  11. The Commission has raised concerns that the lack of legal safeguards in the
    non-statutory refugee status assessment process undermines Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under the Refugee Convention by increasing
    the risk of a refugee being returned to a place where their life or freedom
    would be threatened.[67]

  12. The Commission has recommended that the Australian Government repeal the
    provisions of the Migration Act relating to excised offshore places and abandon
    the policy of processing some asylum claims through a non-statutory refugee
    status assessment process. All unauthorised arrivals who make claims for asylum
    should have those claims assessed through the refugee status determination
    system that applies under the Migration
    Act.[68]

4.2 Other
non-refoulement obligations

  1. The Commission has raised concerns in parliamentary submissions and
    consultations with Australian Government representatives regarding the lack of
    adequate legal protections for people who may not fall within the definition of
    ‘refugee’ under the Refugee Convention, but who nonetheless must be
    protected from refoulement under the ICCPR, the CRC or the Convention
    against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment     (CAT).[69]

  2. Australia does not have a legislated system of protection for such people,
    some of whom may be children. Instead, their claims can only be considered after
    they have been rejected at each stage of the refugee status determination
    process. They can then request that the Minister exercise his or her power to
    grant them a visa on public interest
    grounds.[70]

  3. The Minister may consider Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under international treaties in making decisions based on such
    requests. However, the Minister is not required to consider or decide upon these
    requests – the Minister’s power is discretionary and
    non-compellable.[71] In addition,
    the Minister is not obliged to give reasons for his or her decisions and the
    decisions are not reviewable. This can result in decisions lacking transparency,
    accountability and consistency.

  4. The Commission has previously recommended that a legislated system of
    complementary protection be adopted by the Australian Government in order to
    implement Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under the ICCPR,
    CRC and CAT.[72]

  5. In September 2009, the Australian Government introduced into Parliament the
    Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Bill 2009 (Cth). The Commission
    welcomed the introduction of the Bill. If passed, it would enact a complementary
    protection system in the Migration Act, under which a person entitled to
    complementary protection would be granted a visa with the same conditions and
    entitlements as visas granted to refugees.

  6. However, the Commission expressed some concerns about the scope of the
    statutory complementary protection system proposed by the Bill, including
    that:

    • it will not apply to asylum seekers who arrive in excised offshore
      places

    • it will not offer adequate protection for people who are stateless

    • it should be broadened to provide that Australia has protection obligations
      where a child would suffer serious harm because of a breach of his or her rights
      under the CRC

    • it should be broadened to provide that Australia has protection obligations
      where a non-citizen would suffer serious harm because of a breach of his or her
      rights under the
      ICCPR.[73]

  7. As of April 2010, the Bill had not been passed.

5 Human trafficking

  1. There is only limited anecdotal evidence of trafficking of children in
    Australia. As such, it is not possible to estimate the extent of child
    trafficking in Australia.

  2. The Commission has worked in the past to promote the better protection of
    all trafficking victims, but to date has not conducted specific research or
    policy work on the issue of child trafficking.

  3. The sub-sections below provide a brief summary of:

    • positive developments in Australia’s implementation of the United
      Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
      Especially Women and Children supplementing the Convention on Transnational
      Crime       (Trafficking Protocol)

    • challenges in implementing the Trafficking Protocol in Australia

    • the Commission’s work on human trafficking issues.

  4. The Commission’s comments below highlight areas of concern
    particularly relevant for the protection of the human rights of children.

5.1 Australia’s
criminal law

  1. The Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (the Criminal Code) contains
    Australia’s trafficking in persons offences.

  2. As set out below, section 271.4 of the Criminal Code provides for the
    offence of trafficking in children:

271.4 Offence of trafficking in
children

  • (1) A person (the first person) commits an offence of trafficking in
    children if:

    1. the first person organises or facilitates the entry or proposed entry into
      Australia, or the receipt in Australia, of another person; and
    2. the other person is under the age of 18; and
    3. in organising or facilitating that entry or proposed entry, or that receipt,
      the first person:

      1. intends that the other person will be used to provide sexual services or
        will be otherwise exploited, either by the first person or another, after that
        entry or receipt; or
      2. is reckless as to whether the other person will be used to provide sexual
        services or will be otherwise exploited, either by the first person or another,
        after that entry or receipt.

Penalty: 
Imprisonment for 25 years.

  • (2) A person (the first person) commits an offence of trafficking in
    children if:

    1. the first person organises or facilitates the exit or proposed exit from
      Australia of another person; and
    2. the other person is under the age of 18; and
    3. in organising or facilitating that exit or proposed exit, the first
      person:

      1. intends that the other person will be used to provide sexual services or
        will be otherwise exploited, either by the first person or another, after that
        exit; or
      2. is reckless as to whether the other person will be used to provide sexual
        services or will be otherwise exploited, either by the first person or another,
        after that exit.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for
25 years.

 (3)  In this section:

"sexual service" means the use or display of the body of the
person providing the service for the sexual gratification of others.

  1. Consistent with the definition of ‘trafficking’ in Article 3 of
    the Trafficking Protocol, the movement of persons under the age of 18 for the
    purpose of exploitation is considered ‘trafficking’ even if the
    traffickers do not use force, coercion, or other means to achieve the consent of
    the child to go with the traffickers.

  2. The Commission is concerned that reported case law on trafficking in
    Australia is still very limited.[74] The Commission further notes that a considerable number of cases have been
    dismissed due to lack of evidence or have been appealed to higher
    courts.[75]

  3. It is widely accepted that in Australia the known cases of human trafficking
    for sexual purposes have not been straight forward and do not necessarily
    conform to traditional
    stereotypes.[76] The Commission
    intervened in the High Court case of The Queen v Tang to assist the court in
    interpreting the meaning of ‘slavery’ in the Criminal Code to
    reflect the reality of trafficking in contemporary
    Australia.[77]

  4. In its intervention, the Commission submitted that the definition of
    ‘slavery’ in the Criminal Code should be read with reference to the
    relevant international covenants, namely the 1926 Slavery Convention and the
    Supplementary Convention.[78]

  5. The Commission has also called for a full review of Australian trafficking
    laws in 2010. This would mark five years after the introduction of the
    trafficking in persons offences into Australia’s Criminal Code and
    Australia’s ratification of the Trafficking Protocol. The Commission is
    concerned that Australia’s trafficking in persons offences may not
    comprehensively reflect the full suite of Australia’s international legal
    obligations in this area.[79] For
    example, consideration should be given to including a separate offence of
    ‘forced labour’ in the Criminal Code.

  6. The Commission’s view is that the trafficking in persons offences in
    the Criminal Code should comprehensively cover all aspects of the definition of
    ‘trafficking’ in the Trafficking
    Protocol.[80] This is because
    definitional differences in the Criminal Code may pose obstacles in prosecuting
    and judging cases that fall within the definition of ‘trafficking’
    in the Trafficking Protocol, and may have the potential to limit international
    cooperation critical to gathering evidence to prosecute trafficking
    cases.[81]

5.2 Witness
protection and information

  1. The Commission is of the view that more work could be done to set out the
    rights of trafficking victims during court proceedings. For example, it would be
    useful to develop a comprehensive code on possible witness protection measures
    suitable for use in trafficking trials. This code could then be referred to
    judges hearing trafficking trials so they can be guided in the exercise of their
    discretion to control court proceedings. This code should have an emphasis on
    the special needs of children.

  2. A positive development in a related context is the 2008 publication of Guidelines for NGOs working with trafficked people and an accompanying
    two-page Know Your Rights fact
    sheet,[82] which gives trafficked
    people information about how they can get advice about their visa status,
    contact police and access support services. It has been translated into Thai,
    Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese and Tagalog.

  3. The Commission chaired the National Roundtable on People Trafficking working
    group that developed the Guidelines. The working group consisted of
    representatives from government and non-government organisations working in the
    area of people trafficking.

  4. Chapter 10 of the Guidelines deals with the special needs of families and
    children.

5.3 Compensation

  1. The Commission is only aware of one award of compensation to a person who
    was trafficked to Australia.[83] There are significant practical obstacles that may prevent a trafficked person
    from making compensation claims, including obstacles to obtaining legal advice
    about claiming compensation, a lack of visa options to stay in Australia to
    pursue compensation claims, and the limited legal avenues to pursue compensation
    claims.

  2. The Commission has urged the Australian Government to explore a variety of
    legal options to improve the ability of people who have been trafficked into sex
    and non-sex industries to access
    compensation.[84] These could
    include:

    • establishing a federal compensation scheme for victims of crime

    • exploring the potential of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to enable
      the forfeiture of an offender’s assets to provide compensation to the
      victim of trafficking or a related
      offence[85] and pursuing reparations
      orders under section 21B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

    • improving the access of trafficked people to information and legal advice
      about their existing avenues for making compensation claims, including claims
      for the recovery of unpaid wages.

  3. The Commission notes that in early 2010, the Australian Government
    distributed to the people trafficking working group a discussion paper exploring
    possible options for a communication awareness strategy targeting people who
    have been trafficked into industries other than the sex industry. The strategy
    was aimed at empowering trafficking victims to access their legal rights under
    Australian laws – including workplace relations laws and occupational
    health and safety laws.

5.4 Reforms to the
People Trafficking Visa Framework

  1. Last year, the Commission welcomed changes the Australian Government made to
    the People Trafficking Visa Framework and the Support for Victims of People
    Trafficking Program, effective from 1 July 2009.

  2. The most important changes to the people trafficking visa framework simplify
    and speed up the process for granting permanent witness protection visas to
    trafficked people who have
    contributed[86] to a criminal
    investigation, as well as their immediate family
    members.[87]

  3. The meaning of ‘contribute’ is unclear and may pose problems for
    child trafficking victims who are too scared or distressed to contribute to a
    criminal investigation, or who may not wish to testify against their parents.

  4. Significantly, for the children of trafficking victims, the invitation to
    apply for a permanent witness protection visa will extend to immediate family
    members outside of Australia and not just those family members already in
    Australia.[88]

  5. The changes implement recommendations made by the Commission and
    non-government organisations at the 2008 National Round Table on People
    Trafficking, and are a positive development for the protection of children left
    behind in their country of origin when their parents are trafficked into
    Australia.

  6. A remaining concern is ensuring that any children left behind in their
    country of origin are adequately protected until such time as they are able to
    apply for and obtain a permanent visa under this regime.

5.5 Support for child
trafficking victims

  1. As of July 2009, all victims of trafficking identified by the Australian
    Federal Police have access to the Australian Government’s Victim Support
    Program for up to 90 days, regardless of whether they have contributed to the
    investigation and prosecution of a criminal
    offence.[89]

  2. The types of support services provided by the government through this
    program (via non-government contractors) to identified trafficking victims
    include:

    • accommodation

    • a living allowance

    • a food allowance

    • an amount of money for the purchase of essentials such as clothing and
      toiletries

    • access to health care, including counselling

    • access to interpreters

    • access to legal services

    • an individual case manager responsible for ensuring the appropriate delivery
      of support services to meet clients’ individual
      needs.[90]

  3. Child trafficking victims who come to the attention of the Australian
    Federal Police may be supported by the Victim Support Program until the child
    can be transferred to the care of the relevant state or territory authority. It
    is also likely that a guardian would be
    appointed.[91]

  4. A child trafficking victim who has been identified as an unaccompanied minor
    will generally have access to the same range of government services as all
    Australians – including education or language
    classes.[92] The Commission is aware
    that there is a concern regarding whether all child trafficking victims who
    enter Australia without their parents are systematically identified by
    immigration authorities as being unaccompanied minors. If a child trafficking
    victim is not officially identified as an unaccompanied minor, he or she may not
    have access to the same level of government services.

  5. One final challenge is protecting child trafficking victims who remain in
    Australia from their traffickers or from being re-trafficked –
    particularly where parents have been involved with the child’s initial
    trafficking into Australia. The various state and territory agencies that
    provide guardianship, child protection and foster care support services may not
    be experienced in meeting these types of security needs.

[1] In 2001, the Migration Act
1958 (Cth) was amended to designate a number of islands as ‘excised
offshore places’. A person who becomes an unlawful non-citizen (a
non-citizen without a valid visa) by entering Australia at such a place is
referred to as an ‘offshore entry person’. The purpose of these
amendments was to bar offshore entry persons from being able to apply for a
visa, unless the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship determines that it is
in the public interest to allow them to do so. See Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 46A; Migration Amendment (Excision from the Migration
Zone) Act 2001 (Cth); Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 6) (Cth), reg 5.15C.
[2] Migration
Act 1958 (Cth), ss 189 (1),
189(2).
[3] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 196(1).
[4] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966), art
9(1), at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm (viewed 14 April 2010); Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
(1989), at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm (viewed 14 April 2010).
[5] For
information on the Commission’s human rights complaints handling
functions, see http://humanrights.gov.au/complaints_information/HREOCA_breaches.html.
For Commission reports relating to individual complaints of breaches of human
rights in immigration detention, see http://humanrights.gov.au/legal/humanrightsreports/index.html.
[6] Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission, A last resort? National Inquiry into Children in
Immigration Detention (2004). At http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention_report/index.html (viewed 14 March 2010).
[7] Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Those who’ve come across the
seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals (1998). At http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/seas.html (viewed 14 March 2010).
[8] Information about the Commission’s inspections and reports of the
inspections are available at http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/detention_rights.html#9_3.
[9] The Commission’s
submissions on immigration issues are available at file://fileshare/web_drafts/HreocWeb/legal/submissions/index.html#refugees.
[10] Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission, Immigration Detention Guidelines (2000). At http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc_guidelines2000.html.
[11] See http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/index.html.
[12] A last resort, note 6.
[13] A last resort, note 6, Executive Summary,
Part A: Major Findings and Recommendations, Major Finding
1.
[14] CRC, note 4, art 37(b),
37(d).
[15] CRC, note 4, art
3(1).
[16] CRC, note 4, art
37(c).
[17] CRC, note 4, art 22(1), 6(2),
39.
[18] A last resort, note 6, Executive Summary, Part A: Major Findings
and Recommendations, Major Finding
2.
[19] A last resort, note 6, Executive Summary, Part A: Major Findings
and Recommendations, Major Finding
3.
[20] CRC, note 4, art
19(1).
[21] CRC, note 4, art
24(1).
[22] CRC, note 4, art
23(1).
[23] CRC, note 4, art
28(1).
[24] CRC, note 4, art
20(1).
[25] A last resort, note 6, Executive Summary, Part A: Major
Findings and Recommendations, recommendation
1.
[26] A last resort, note 6, Executive Summary, Part A: Major Findings
and Recommendations, recommendation
2.
[27] A last resort, note 6, Executive Summary, Part A: Major Findings
and Recommendations, recommendations 3, 4,
5.
[28] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s4AA.
[29] Migration
Act 1958 (Cth), s 197AB.
[30] For further information, see Australian Human Rights Commission, 2008
Immigration detention report: Summary of observations following visits to
Australia’s immigration detention facilities (2009), section 12.3. At http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2008.html (viewed 14 April 2010).
[31] Note, however, that some children and their family members are detained in other
types of immigration detention facilities, as discussed in section 3.4 of this
paper.
[32] C Evans, New
Directions in Detention – Restoring Integrity to Australia’s
Immigration System (Speech delivered at the Centre for International and
Public Law Seminar, Australian National University, Canberra, 29 July 2008). At http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/speeches/2008/ce080729.htm (viewed 14 April 2010).
[33] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 25 June 2009, p 4264 (The
Hon Penny Wong MP, Minister for Climate Change and
Water).
[34] Australian Human
Rights Commission, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs on the Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention Reform)
Bill 2009 (2009). At http://humanrights.gov.au/legal/submissions/2009/20090731_migration.html (viewed 14 April 2010).
[35] As
above, section 7.
[36] See, for
example Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and
offshore processing on Christmas Island (2009), at \\fileshare\web_drafts\HreocWeb\human_rights\immigration\idc2009_xmas_island.html (viewed 14 April 2010); Australian Human Rights Commission, 2008 Immigration
detention report, note 30; Australian
Human Rights Commission, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs on the Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention
Reform) Bill 2009, note 34.
[37] For further details, see Australian Human Rights Commission, 2008 Immigration
detention report, note 30, section
12.
[38] Department of
Immigration and Citizenship, Community and Detention Services Division, Immigration Detention Statistics Summary (12 March 2010). At http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/facilities/statistics/ (viewed 14 April 2010).
[39] See
further Australian Human Rights Commission, 2008 Immigration detention
report, note 30, section
14.3.
[40] Migration Act
1958 (Cth), s 5(1). The amendments were made pursuant to the Migration
Amendment (Excision from the Migration Zone) Act 2001 (Cth). Further islands
were excised by the Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 6) (Cth),
reg 5.15C.
[41] Migration Act
1958 (Cth), s 5(1).
[42] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 46A. See section 4.1 of this paper for
further discussion of the Minister’s discretionary power under this
provision.
[43] Migration Act
1958 (Cth), s
494AA(1)(c).
[44] Migration
Act 1958 (Cth), ss 189(3), 189(4).
[45] Department of Immigration
and Citizenship, Community and Detention Services Division, Immigration
Detention Statistics Summary (12 March 2010). At http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/facilities/statistics/ (viewed 14 April 2010).
[46] The
facility is informally referred to as the ‘construction camp’
because it was formerly used as accommodation for construction workers who were
temporarily based on Christmas
Island.
[47] See further
Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and offshore
processing on Christmas Island (2009), section 11.3. At \\fileshare\web_drafts\HreocWeb\human_rights\immigration\idc2009_xmas_island.html (viewed 14 April 2010).
[48] Migration Act 1958 (Cth),
s4AA.
[49] See Australian Human
Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and offshore processing on
Christmas Island, note 47, section 3;
Australian Human Rights Commission, 2008 Immigration detention report,
note 30, section
13.
[50] See further Australian
Human Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and offshore processing
on Christmas Island, note 47, section
11; Australian Human Rights Commission, 2008 Immigration detention
report, note 30, section
14.
[51] A last resort, note 6, Executive Summary, Part A: Major Findings
and Recommendations. The major recommendations made by the Commission in A last
resort are summarised in section 3.2 of this paper.
[52] Minister for Immigration
and Citizenship, ‘Changes to Australia's Immigration Processing
System’ (Joint Media Release with Minister for Foreign Affairs and
Minister for Home Affairs, 9 April 2010). At http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2010/ce10029.htm (viewed 15 April 2010).
[53] According to information provided by the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship on 12 April 2010, the suspension will be applied as follows. In the
case of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka or Afghanistan who are intercepted at sea
or who arrive in an excised offshore place on or after 9 April 2010, all
processing relating to their asylum claims will be suspended. In the case of
asylum seekers from Sri Lanka or Afghanistan who apply for refugee status on the
Australian mainland on or after 9 April 2010, the processing of their
applications will be accorded the lowest processing
priority.
[54] Australian Human
Rights Commission, ‘Suspension of processing asylum seekers raises serious
concerns’ (Media Release, 9 April 2010). At http://humanrights.gov.au/about/media/media_releases/2010/29_10.html (viewed 15 April 2010).
[55] For
further information, see Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Visas,
Immigration and Refugees web page at http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/seeking_protection.htm (viewed 15 April 2010).
[56] In
2001, the Migration Act was amended to designate a number of islands as
‘excised offshore places’. See Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s
5(1).
[57] Migration Act
1958 (Cth), s 46.
[58] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 411(1)(c), 500(1)(b), 500(1)(c),
501(1).
[59] Migration Act
1958 (Cth), ss 476, 476A. The High Court has held that the privative clause
in section 474(1) of the Migration Act does not preclude judicial review of
decisions affected by jurisdictional error: Plaintiff S157/2002 v
Godwin (2003) 211 CLR 476 at
506.
[60] As discussed in section
3.4(b) of this paper, the Migration Act was amended in 2001 to designate a
number of islands as excised offshore places. A person who becomes an unlawful
non-citizen by entering Australia at such a place is referred to as an offshore
entry person. The purpose of these amendments was to bar offshore entry persons
from being able to apply for a visa (including a protection visa) unless the
Minister determines that it is in the public interest to allow them to do so.
See Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1),
46A.
[61] See further Australian
Human Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and offshore processing
on Christmas Island, note 47, section
7.
[62] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 46A(1), 46A(2).
[63] No
provision is made in the non-statutory refugee status assessment process for
judicial review of a decision made by a DIAC officer or an Independent Reviewer.
The High Court’s original jurisdiction in section 75(v) of the Australian
Constitution, however, remains available to compel compliance by officers of the
Commonwealth with their statutory or common law duties. An asylum seeker who
arrived in an excised offshore place may seek a remedy of mandamus, prohibition
or injunction in the High Court pursuant to section 75(v) of the Constitution,
but would have to establish that the Commonwealth officer had a relevant
statutory or common law
duty.
[64] See, for example
Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and offshore
processing on Christmas Island, note 47, Part B; Australian Human Rights
Commission, 2008 Immigration detention report, note 30, section
13.
[65] The Commission’s
concerns are set out in its 2009 Christmas Island report, note 47, section
8.2.
[66] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s
46A.
[67] See, for example
Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and offshore
processing on Christmas Island, note 47, Part
B.
[68] See, for example
Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and offshore
processing on Christmas Island, note 47, sections 3,
8.
[69] See, for example Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Submission to the Joint Standing
Committee on Migration Inquiry into Immigration Detention in Australia (2008), paras 69-75, at http://www.humanrights.gov.au/legal/submissions/2008/20080829_immigration_detention.html (viewed 15 April 2010); Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Ministerial Discretion in
Migration Matters (2003), at http://www.hreoc.gov.au/legal/submissions/migration_matters.html (viewed 15 April 2010).
[70] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s
417(1).
[71] Migration Act
1958 (Cth), s 417(7).
[72] See, for example Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Submission to
the Joint Standing Committee on Migration Inquiry into Immigration Detention in
Australia, note 69, paras 69-75.
[73] Australian Human Rights
Commission, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Complementary
Protection) Bill 2009 (2009). At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/legal/submissions/2009/20090930_migration_complementary.html (viewed 15 April 2010).
[74] A
Scholenhardt, G Beirne and T Corsbie, ‘Human Trafficking and Sexual
Servitude in Australia’ (2009), 32(1) UNSW Law Journal,
27.
[75] A Scholenhardt, G Beirne
and T Corsbie, ‘Human Trafficking and Sexual Servitude in Australia’
(2009), 32(1) UNSW Law Journal, 27, 39.
[76] See Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, ‘Trafficking of women
for sexual purposes: Research and Public Policy Series - No. 95’ (8 April
2009) at http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/traffic_women/Pages/default.aspx (viewed 28 October 2009). See also Anne Gallagher, Prosecuting and
Adjudicating Trafficking in Persons Cases in Australia: Obstacles and
Opportunities (Speech delivered at the National Judicial College of
Australia Twilight Seminar on Human Trafficking, Sydney, 15 June 2009); Fiona
David, ‘Trafficking for Sexual Purposes’, Australian
Institute of Criminology, Research and Public Policy Series, no 95, 39;
Fiona David, ‘Prosecuting trafficking in persons: known issues, emerging
response’, Australian Institute for Criminology, Trends and Issues in
Criminal Justice, no.358, June
2008.
[77] Queen v Tang (2008) 237 CLR 1.
[78] See
Australian Human Rights Commission, Submissions in support of the Application
for Leave to Intervene and Submissions on the Appeal - Commonwealth Director of
Public Prosecutions v Wei Tang, 5 May 2008. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/legal/submissions_court/intervention/tang.html (viewed 24 November 2009).
[79] E Broderick and B Byrnes, Beyond Wei Tang: Do Australia’s human
trafficking laws fully reflect Australia’s international human rights
obligations? (Speech delivered at Workshop on Legal and Criminal Justice
Responses to Trafficking in Persons in Australia: Obstacles, Opportunities and
Best Practice, Monash University, 9 November 2009),
72.
[80] E Broderick and B
Byrnes, Beyond Wei Tang: Do Australia’s human trafficking laws fully
reflect Australia’s international human rights obligations? (Speech
delivered at Workshop on Legal and Criminal Justice Responses to Trafficking in
Persons in Australia: Obstacles, Opportunities and Best Practice, Monash
University, 9 November 2009),
74.
[81] E Broderick and B
Byrnes, Beyond Wei Tang: Do Australia’s human trafficking laws fully
reflect Australia’s international human rights obligations? (Speech
delivered at Workshop on Legal and Criminal Justice Responses to Trafficking in
Persons in Australia: Obstacles, Opportunities and Best Practice, Monash
University, 9 November 2009).
[82] Available at http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/publication/traffic_NGO/index.html (viewed 19 April 2010).
[83] In
May 2007, The Age newspaper reported that ‘[a] former child sex slave has
become the first person in Australia to be compensated as a victim of sex
trafficking’. The award was actually made under the Victims Support and
Rehabilitation Act 1996 (NSW) and the woman, who was trafficked to Australia
in 1995 when she was 13, claimed compensation as a victim of sexual assault, not
a victim of trafficking. See Natalie Craig, ‘Sex slave victim wins abuse
claim’, The Age, 29 May 2007. For discussion of another effort to obtain
compensation in a trafficking case see Julie Lewis, ‘Out of the
Shadows’, Law Society Journal 17, February
2007.
[84] See further Elizabeth
Broderick, ‘Slavery in the 21st Century, A Human Rights Challenge’
(Speech presented at the Australian Human Rights Commission, 16 October 2008).
[85] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 21(1)(c).
[86] Previously, trafficking victims were only eligible for a permanent witness
protection visa if they made a ‘significant’ contribution to a
criminal investigation.
[87] See
Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, ‘For trafficked
people, Government changes put human rights first’ (Media release, 17 June
2009). At http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/media/media_releases/2009/50_09.html (viewed 21 April 2010).
[88] For
further information, see http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/Pages/AntiPeopleTraffickingStrategy.aspx (viewed 19 April 2010).
[89] For
further information, see http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/Pages/AntiPeopleTraffickingStrategy.aspx (viewed 19 April 2010).
[90] For
further information, see http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/Pages/peopletrafficking.aspx#3 (viewed 19 April 2010).
[91] See Guidelines for NGOs working with trafficked people, Chapter 10. At http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/publication/traffic_NGO/index.html,
(viewed 19 April 2010).
[92] For
further information about services available to unaccompanied minors, see
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, ‘Fact Sheet 69 - Caring for
Unaccompanied Minors’, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/69unaccompanied.htm (viewed 19 April 2010).