Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I will not take my full time on this report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, as Senator Bartlett has dealt with some of the substantive issues. This is a serious issue, and it does not do the government credit to fail to do three things that it should have done. Firstly, from my short inquiry this morning, it does not appear that the Australian Crime Commission or the parliamentary committee were advised that the report would be tabled today and, to ensure there was a proper response to this matter, it would have been helpful had the government advised them that that was the case.

Secondly, contained in this report is the criticism, which Senator Bartlett went to, that the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Crime Commission might have exceeded or gone far broader than its terms of reference. Let me say this for the record, for the department that might be listening and to the minister responsible: when these matters do go broader—I do not think they did—it is because they are serious. They did require attention by the committee and they have been embodied in the recommendations that the committee made. Looking at the broad scope of the committee, the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Crime Commission has a statutory responsibility to examine trends and changes in the methods and practices of criminal activities and to report to parliament with any suggested changes. Accordingly, the committee, as it said, conducted an inquiry into the commission’s involvement in assessing trafficking for the purposes of sexual servitude in Australia, its relationship with relevant state and other Commonwealth agencies and the adequacy of the current legislative framework. I cannot speak on behalf of the committee but, having served as a member of the committee, I can say that I make no apology for going broader than the committee’s terms of reference in making these recommendations.

Thirdly, the government has not taken this opportunity to reply to the supplementary report to the inquiry into the trafficking of women for sexual servitude. Given the length of time it has taken the government to respond to the first June 2004 report, it could have taken this opportunity to deal with both reports at the same time. The government has chosen in this instance not to do so and that is disappointing. It has indicated that a further response will be forthcoming. Let us hope that we do not have to wait a similar amount of time for that second report to be dealt with.

In terms of the general thrust of the government’s response, I have to say that, in response to some of the recommendations—and where credit is due it is worth giving—the government has ensured that we have been able to meet the relevant protocols. On 14 September 2005, the government ratified the protocol in recommendation 7 and it did pass the relevant legislation, which was facilitated through this parliament, to ensure that a relevant legislative framework was in place to deal with this shocking crime. Therefore, on those points, from the point of view of both the opposition and the government, it is worth saying that we are pleased to see both an improved legislative framework and the ratification of the protocol. Both needed to be done, and Labor are pleased that they have been done. However, the government has not responded adequately or well, frankly, to some of the recommendations—I will not go into all the recommendations now; I will take time to go carefully through them and deal with them at a later time—that would have helped victims of this sort of crime. A broader look by this government at some of those issues that were raised really is required, where the government could examine how to help the victims of such crime more. One of the recommendations said:

The Committee recommends that all trafficked women accepted onto the victim support program or receiving the Criminal Justice Stay Visa be exempt from compulsory return to their country of origin.

I think the responses the government have provided to some of those matters are inadequate and not sufficient to justify the position that they have adopted. The government’s approach is focused on stamping out this practice, which they have argued that they would, and not on removal. That is in part accepted, but I think that, in terms of ensuring that the victims of crime are treated reasonably, the government have a long way to go.

There are a range of other recommendations that I will not deal with, as I have indicated today, but I do hope to see at an earlier stage the response to the August 2005 report, because it contains a number of important recommendations, such as:

The Committee recommends that the ACC continue its involvement in law enforcement strategies against sexual servitude and trafficking in women.

Recommendation 2 says:

The Committee recommends that a review of the new legislation take place a year after its implementation ...

And recommendation 3 says:

The Committee recommends that the ANAO consider undertaking an evaluation of the results of the National Action Plan, after three years of operation.

They are three worthwhile recommendations that we do not yet have responses to, and I encourage the government to not only provide a response but also seriously consider adopting those recommendations and ensuring that they can be dealt with in a comprehensive way. The government also have not accepted the recommendation to ensure that there would be victim impact statements. The government have said that they have accepted it in part, but they have not ensured that the broader issues will be addressed for the victims of these terrible crimes. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.