CHAPTER 4
Arranged and forced marriages
4.1
This chapter discusses the topics of arranged and forced marriages
within the Prospective Marriage visa program, including :
-
the incidence of arranged marriages, including the sufficiency and suitability of assessment procedures to ascertain the
reliability of consent in potential cases of arranged marriages;
-
the incidence of forced marriages;
-
whether current policies and practices are facilitating forced
marriages; and
-
policies and practices that could provide stronger protections
against forced marriages.
4.2
An arranged marriage is one in which the families of both spouses play a
dominant role in arranging the marriage but the spouses have the right to
accept or reject the arrangement.[1]
It is distinguishable from a forced marriage in which one or both spouses do
not (or, in the case of some adults with learning or physical disabilities,
cannot) consent to the marriage, and duress is a factor. The duress can be physical,
emotional, psychological, or financial.[2]
Incidence of arranged marriages
4.3
As with cases of fraud, the Department's electronic database does not
store information regarding the incidence of arranged marriages within the
Prospective Marriage visa program in such a fashion as to allow for
statistical reporting.[3]
It is not possible therefore to accurately gauge how many visa holders have actually
entered into an arranged marriage after arrival in Australia.
4.4
Nevertheless, the Department acknowledges that arranged marriages are a part
of normal cultural practice in a number of countries and feature prominently in
the caseload of some Australian posts. Two of these posts – Beirut and New
Delhi – are top 10 posts,[4]
which have granted 9.57% of all Prospective Marriage visas from 1 July 2006
to 31 December 2011.[5]
Ascertaining the reliability of
consent
4.5
The Department advised that it generally accepts arranged marriages
which have the consent of both parties as 'culturally appropriate'. Unless there
is information to suggest that a marriage has been contrived (a sham marriage),
or at least one of the parties has been forced to enter into the marriage (a
forced marriage), a Prospective Marriage visa application involving an
arranged marriage is processed in the same manner as any other application.[6]
4.6
NSW Legal Aid agreed that it is appropriate to respect migrants'
cultural practices (such as arranged marriages), provided these practices do
not breach Australian laws. Its submission cited the case of Kreet v Sampir[7]
in which the Family Court of Australia held:
Cultural practices are sensitive issues but...the law to be
applied is that of Australia. If a cultural practice relating to a marriage
gives rise to the overbearing of a mind and will so that it is not a true
consent, the cultural practice must give way. Arranged marriages...must not carry
with them lack of consent.[8]
Procedures Advice Manual
4.7
Where it appears that at least one of the parties in an arranged
marriage might not have fully consented to an intended marriage, the
Department's Procedures Advice Manual (PAM) provides guidance to decision-makers
on how to assess the Prospective Marriage visa application:
10.2 Assessing real consent
...because [the] 300.216 [criterion] requires officers to be
satisfied that 'the parties genuinely intend to live together as spouses',
officers are in effect obliged to be satisfied that 'real consent' has been
given by both parties to the impending marriage.
Officers should, however, exercise care and sensitivity if
there are indications that real consent has not been given. There may be
serious implications for the safety and well being of the prospective spouse
should that person's unwillingness to marry become known to persons other than
the decision maker, or be disclosed within a decision record.
Officers may consider confining the decision record to an
appropriate 'time of application' criterion. As examples:
-
300.214 (met and known) –
applicant and the prospective spouse might have met as children but are unable
to demonstrate that their relationship has developed to a point where the
decision to marry was mutual or
-
300.215 (genuine intent to marry
within visa period) – applicant and the prospective spouse might be unable to
satisfy the decision maker that they have made firm plans to marry or
-
300.216 (genuine intent to live
together as spouses) – applicant and the prospective spouse may not be able to
demonstrate that they have formed or will form a lasting relationship
consistent with the requirements of regulation 1.15A.
Care should also be taken to ensure that potentially
sensitive material on file is properly labelled to ensure that the information
provided by the applicant or the prospective spouse is not released.[9]
4.8
On the issue of whether there should be a specific requirement for
decision‑makers to assess the 'real consent' of a Prospective Marriage
visa applicant, representatives from the Department responded that the Migration
Act 1958 (Migration Act), the Migration Regulations 1994 (Migration
Regulations) and the PAM collectively provide decision-makers with advice and
information 'about what might constitute duress or lack of real consent that
they take into account'.[10]
4.9
Some submissions commented directly on the sufficiency and suitability
of the Department's 'real consent' assessment procedures. For example, Ms
Schillaci from Hall & Wilcox Lawyers, NSW Legal Aid, and the Immigration
Advice and Rights Centre submitted that the current procedures are adequate.[11]
4.10
In contrast, the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia (CATWA)
argued that the procedures are not sufficient and suitable. CATWA referred to
recent media articles in which girls who reported being threatened by their
families unless they consented to a 'family-arranged marriage' were granted
Prospective Marriage visas,[12]
and concluded:
There is enough evidence to suggest, from the limited
information made available to the media by the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship in November 2011, that current procedures used to assess the
reliability of the consent of an applicant are vastly inadequate.[13]
4.11
CATWA identified two primary concerns:
-
first, the primary focus on the detection and prevention of fraud
does not adequately allow for processes that prioritise human rights of women;
and
-
second, a focus purely on ascertaining the reliability of an
applicant's 'consent' to a marriage disregards research illustrating that,
although a victim may publicly agree to an arranged marriage, in reality a forced
marriage is occurring.[14]
4.12
As a solution, CATWA recommended:
-
involving the Minister for the Status of Women in the development
of new procedures that aim to integrate concerns regarding the human rights of
migrant women;
-
developing processes that meaningfully take into account the
different types of coercion that victims of forced marriage experience, and the
violation of their human rights that this involves; and
-
in suspected cases of forced marriage, offering alternative
options as a means of assisting women who may otherwise be reluctant to speak
out about the abuse they are experiencing.[15]
Incidence of forced marriages
4.13
In general, submitters and witnesses agreed that the incidence of forced
marriages in Australia is an unknown factor. In particular, the Department
submitted that there is a shortage of empirical information, both generally and
in an immigration context.[16]
According to the Department, this is partly due to the difficulty in
identifying cases of forced marriage:
...the coercion which characterises a forced marriage will in
most circumstances also deter victims from reporting their situation to
immigration or other officials.[17]
4.14
However, there are anecdotal reports of forced marriages occurring in
Australia, as well as instances of young Australians being forced into
marriages while overseas.[18]
The committee notes that there have been two recent prosecutions in
relation to forced marriage in Australia – the Family Court of Australia
cases of the Department of Human Services & Brouker and Anor[19]
and Kandal & Khyatt & Ors.[20]
4.15
In relation to Australia's Migration Program, the Department advised
that cases of forced marriage are not a frequent occurrence, with only a small
number of posts having reported either isolated incidents or the occasional
case involving forced marriage.[21]
Facilitation of forced marriages
4.16
Some submitters and witnesses addressed the issue of whether the current
policies and practices of the Prospective Marriage visa program are
facilitating forced marriages. NSW Legal Aid, for example, was not aware of any
evidence of such facilitation,[22]
whereas CATWA considered that several aspects of current policies and practices
are facilitating forced marriages in Australia.
4.17
Referring to statistics released by the Department in November 2011,
CATWA argued that there is an urgent need for the Australian Government to immediately
review the Prospective Marriage visa program:
The use of these visas to enable the marriage of young women
from overseas to much older Australian men...suggests that trafficking for
marriage is occurring in Australia, and is being aided by the Commonwealth
Government through a lack of meaningful oversight.[23]
4.18
CATWA called on the Australian Government to fund new research into the
problem of marriage trafficking in Australia:
It is likely that the use of the Prospective Marriage visa
program to facilitate forced marriages forms only one part of a larger problem
of trafficking for the purposes of marriage that is taking place in Australia.
In the last ten years, there have been reports not only of women being brought
into Australia for forced marriage, but also of girls being taken out of the
country and to overseas destinations...There is also a long history in Australia
of the abuse of migrant women who have entered the country as 'mail-order'
brides, through similar fiancée visas.[24]
4.19
The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) informed the committee
that it is currently researching the role of marriage in trafficking and
related exploitation in Australia, with a comprehensive report detailing its
study and findings to be published in 2012.[25]
However, preliminary results suggest that, in the eight cases examined for the purposes
of its study:
...marriage visa classes have been used to facilitate
trafficking-related exploitation or associated risky scenarios in two ways.
First, marriages have been identified where there was no intention on the part
of the husband for the marriage to be genuine (for example, where the 'husband'
is already in a de facto relationship with another person)...Second, marriages
have been identified where the marriage is genuine but the husband has the
intention of seriously exploiting his wife in their relationship, for example
by forcing her into domestic servitude.[26]
4.20
In its submission, the AIC also referred to the Australian case of R
v Kovacs,[27]
as well as to the cases of R v FAS,[28]
and Columbia & Columbia,[29]
to illustrate the problem that:
...the partner visa system (consisting of visas available to
enable spouses, de facto partners and fiancés to migrate to Australia) has been
misused for the purpose of human trafficking or for related serious
exploitation.[30]
Identification of cases
4.21
The Department informed the committee that the identification of
Prospective Marriage visa applications involving forced marriages presents
a challenge to departmental officers. This is primarily due to victims remaining
silent about their situation for fear of retribution, and the simple fact that most
supporting documentation is found to be genuine even if a degree of coercion is
present.[31]
4.22
In addition, the Department advised:
Fear of retribution against the victim also presents
challenges in deciding visa applications where one of the parties indicates
they do not consent to the relationship but are afraid to make such a statement
publicly. It is very difficult for the Department to refuse a visa application
without specifying the reason. This is especially the case when decision-making
is subject to merits and judicial review.[32]
4.23
The most frequent concern for decision-makers determining Prospective Marriage
visa applications is that family pressure may have played a role in an
applicant's decision to accept an arranged marriage. As the Department noted in
its submission:
...this can be a grey area given that it can be difficult to
determine the point at which family or cultural expectations become coercive
rather than influencing factors in a person's decision to marry.[33]
Creating opportunities for
disclosure
4.24
Some witnesses indicated that, while often reluctant to report their
circumstances, victims of forced marriages need to be given the opportunity to
do so. For example, Dr Adam Tomison, Director of the AIC, suggested compulsory
attendance and completion of English courses as an opportunity for victims to
seek informal help:
In [our] study, women were denied access to English courses
or community centres by their spouse because they were prevented from leaving
their homes or only allowed to leave if they were escorted by other family
members. If there was a requirement to attend such courses and for agencies to
report back to immigration or to provide evidence that the women had attended
and completed their course, this might provide a greater opportunity for women
in an exploitative situation to have contact with people that could assist
them.[34]
4.25
Dr Tomison emphasised that the focus should be on presenting forced marriage
victims with opportunities to acquire information and assistance:
It is creating that opportunity that is the vital element.
The English classes were one vehicle that was mentioned in the study...A broader
issue is just around having some community based organisation of some sort
having access to a person without the spouse and other family members present
to see how they are settling in and to make sure that they are okay and do not
need to be provided with information to assist them to escape exploitative
situations.[35]
4.26
On the other hand, CATWA argued that it is the responsibility of the Australian
Government to advise victims of alternatives apart from going through with the
marriage (for example, access to women's refuges and legal assistance), which might
empower victims to reveal the existence of a forced marriage before it occurs.[36]
Strengthening protections against forced marriages
4.27
Some submitters and witnesses indicated that there are current policies
and practices that could be revised to provide stronger protections for
potential victims of forced marriages in the Prospective Marriage visa program.[37]
These measures include: the program's 18-years age requirement; enhanced
scrutiny of sponsors; special training for decision-makers; an enhanced legislative
response; and further research, education and support measures.
18-years age requirement
4.28
CATWA submitted that the 18-years age requirement is not effective in
preventing forced marriages in Australia, as evidenced by cases reported in the
media of young women coerced into marrying much older men.[38]
CATWA therefore recommended raising the minimum age at which a Prospective
Marriage visa can be granted to at least 18 years old, rather than the minimum
of 17 years and three months:
[R]aising the age at which the visa is granted may afford
some victims of forced marriage extra time in which to make decisions about
their future.[39]
4.29
A departmental officer informed the committee that the 18-years age
requirement is consistent with the Marriage Act 1961:
It would therefore be unreasonable to [impose age
restrictions] for the purpose of a visa that enables a person to enter
Australia and marry lawfully...[M]ost applicants under the age of 18 were
sponsored by people aged 29 or younger, and it is incorrect to infer that the
Prospective Marriage Visa program is used by older men to prey on young women.[40]
Experience in the United Kingdom
4.30
In this context, the committee notes that in November 2008 the
UK Government increased the minimum age for partner visa applicants and
their sponsors in the United Kingdom from 18 to 21 years, by amending the
Immigration Rules 1994 (UK).[41]
The policy objective was to tackle the problem of forced marriage in light of
evidence suggesting that those in the age group 17-20 are most affected by
forced marriage.[42]
4.31
In its Eighth Report of Session 2010-2012 on Forced Marriage, the
United Kingdom's House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that
the amended age requirement 'undoubtedly helped a number of young people to
resist forced marriage'. However, that committee also received evidence from
the Crime Prosecution Service that the amendment resulted in an increase in
birth certificate fraud, with some individuals trying to pretend that they met
the new criterion.[43]
4.32
In 2011, the legality of the new age requirement was successfully
challenged in the British Supreme Court, which found that the changes breached
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
1950 (providing the right to respect for private and family life).[44]
4.33
Accordingly, the Immigration Rules 1994 (UK) were amended to
reinstate a minimum age of 18 years for a spouse, civil partner, fiancé(e),
proposed civil partner, unmarried partner or same-sex partner, and sponsor to
qualify for entry clearance, leave to enter, leave to remain or variation of
leave on the basis of the applicant's relationship.[45]
The committee also notes that Norway requires persons applying for a fiancé permit (a residence permit for
six months to get married in Norway) to be of lawful marriageable age (18 years).[46]
Enhanced scrutiny of sponsors
4.34
Dr Tomison from the AIC informed the committee that, in the AIC's
exploratory research, 'the partner's behaviour was such that there were
concerns about the use of deception and the recruitment of the woman for the
purposes of serious exploitation'.[47]
Dr Tomison suggested that it might be beneficial for there to be more intensive
scrutiny of a Prospective Marriage visa sponsor, however:
...criminal checks alone are [not] going to be the answer.
Perhaps, a more detailed assessment of the sponsor, rather than just a strong
focus on the overseas partner, or would-be partner coming in, may go some way
to reduce risk by identifying potentially risky situations...You
might want to look at, obviously, the marriage history and other relationships
and get referee reports from other members of the community.[48]
4.35
The Immigration Advice and Rights Centre (IARC) supported a proposal for
Prospective Marriage visa sponsors to be interviewed and questioned about their
intentions.[49]
At the public hearing, Ms Louisa McKimm from the IARC expressed particular
concern with those cases in which the sponsor does not freely consent to an
intended marriage:
The discussion about [forced marriage] seems to focus on the
applicant. ...[T]he sponsor's consent to the marriage is also relevant. They can
also experience duress and be subject to a family situation that they have no
control over that may result in them being a party to a marriage that they are
not entirely happy with.[50]
Special training for
decision-makers
4.36
In the United Kingdom, the issue of forced marriages has been the
subject of considerable attention, including by the Home Office and the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office which formed the Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) in 2005.
The policy role of the FMU is to work with other government departments,
statutory agencies and voluntary organisations to develop effective policy for
tackling forced marriages.[51]
4.37
In January 2010, the FMU published statutory guidelines, outlining the
responsibilities of certain chief executives, directors and senior managers to
develop and maintain local procedures and practice arrangements to enable front‑line
workers to handle cases of forced marriage effectively. The guidelines also set
out how cases of forced marriage should be responded to using existing
frameworks.[52]
4.38
The FMU has also published practice guidelines for front-line workers in
government departments and agencies. The practice guidelines provide advice and
support, including a description of the potential indicators of a forced
marriage.[53]
4.39
CATWA recommended that the Australian Government consider the work of
government agencies and organisations based in the United Kingdom:
...it is clear that specialist training is required for the
relevant immigration officers to improve their capacity to detect prospective
forced marriages, and other marriage practices that may be harmful to women.[54]
4.40
In response to such a suggestion, a representative from the Department
advised:
We do provide a level of general training, particularly to
integrity officers, in terms of interview techniques, analysis, and document
examination—so that they can go behind the documents—and they do receive
training in terms of the particular countries and cultures they will be dealing
with. But we have identified that there is a need for more specific training in
this area.[55]
4.41
The Department's submission referred to the current development of a
training package for Prospective Marriage visa decision-makers, which draws on
the work of the FMU:
It is hoped that this training package will assist decision makers
in identifying risk factors of forced marriage and appropriate steps which they
should take where there are concerns that a forced marriage may be occurring.[56]
An enhanced legislative response
4.42
In its submission, the Department stated that the FMU 'appears to be the
most advanced' response to forced marriage.[57]
The UK Government has also responded to the issue of forced marriages in the
United Kingdom by introducing civil legislation, and has foreshadowed the
introduction of legislation to criminalise forced marriages.[58]
Civil legislation
4.43
In 2007, the UK Government enacted the Forced Marriage (Civil
Protection) Act 2007 (UK) to protect potential and actual victims of forced
marriage. This legislation provides for the High Court and designated county
courts to make Forced Marriage Protection Orders to prevent an apprehended
forced marriage, or provide practical assistance to the victim of a forced
marriage.[59]
4.44
According to the British Home Office, the rising number of applications
for Forced Marriage Protection Orders and reported cases reflects:
...the continued efforts of the [FMU] to raise awareness among
victims and potential victims that forced marriage is unacceptable and help is
available.[60]
4.45
During this inquiry, only two participants commented on the United
Kingdom's civil legislation. CATWA supported the introduction of similar
legislation in Australia but argued that such legislation should not comprise the
sole legislative response to the problem of forced marriage:
[Such an approach] requires victims to take responsibility
for the crime that is being committed against them. It places the burden on the
victim to seek out a protection order, whereas the criminal law would put the
responsibility on authorities.[61]
4.46
Further:
[Civil legislation] is likely to be ineffectual and
inaccessible to victims if, as is often the case, they are only made aware at
the last minute of the impending marriage.[62]
4.47
The Department's submission described the FMU's casework – at home,
abroad and in the immigration context – as well as the Forced Marriage
(Civil Protection) Act 2007 (UK). However, the submission did not indicate
whether the Australian Government is, or would be, exploring the possible
introduction of similar legislation in Australia.[63]
Criminalising forced marriage
4.48
In 2005, the FMU consulted the British public on whether forced marriage
should be criminalised in the United Kingdom. The majority of respondents in
the consultation did not support criminalising forced marriage (37%),[64]
considering that the disadvantages of any such legislation would outweigh the
advantages (for example, potentially driving forced marriage underground,
preventing reconciliation and isolating victims).[65]
4.49
The UK Government decided not to proceed with the creation of a criminal
offence but instead enacted the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 (UK),
which came into force on 25 November 2008.[66]
4.50
In May 2011, the United Kingdom's Home Affairs Select Committee questioned
the effectiveness of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 (UK),
based on 'inadequacies in the monitoring of compliance with [a protection]
order...and a lack of effective action in cases of breach'. While it considered
that the civil legislation should continue to be used, that committee also
stated:
...it would send out a very clear and positive message to
communities within the UK and internationally if it becomes a criminal act to
force – or to participate in forcing – an individual to enter into a marriage
against their will.[67]
4.51
The UK Government responded as follows:
While the Committee's Report states that criminalisation
would send out a 'very clear and positive message', it does not define how this
would be achieved above and beyond what is already achieved by the general
criminal offences (assault, kidnap, people trafficking etc) that might apply in
circumstances of forced marriage. However, if the Committee can provide
evidence that a criminal offence and sanction would be more effective in
encouraging the reporting of cases, or that it would deter perpetrators, we
would be happy to consider it.[68]
4.52
In December 2011, the British Home Office released a Discussion Paper
seeking views on whether a specific criminal offence would help combat forced
marriage and, if so, how the offence should be formulated.[69]
The closing date for responses to that inquiry was 30 March 2012 and, on 8 June
2012, UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced the outcome of
the consultation process: namely, that forcing someone to marry will become a
criminal offence in England and Wales.[70]
4.53
The committee notes, in this context, the response to the Home Office's
inquiry from the Ashiana Network, the only dedicated refuge network for British
victims of forced marriages:
In our consultation with residents across our three refuges
(two specifically for women at risk of forced marriage) all 20 women responded.
7 out of 20 women said that criminalisation may help in raising the issue with
communities and therefore may deter families from engaging in this practice.
Further exploration of this indicated that this perception is misguided as
there is an assumption that this will act as a deterrent and their parents
would not go ahead with it. This may in fact put the woman at greater risk, as
she feels a false sense of security and fails to take any protective measures
e.g. failing to tell someone about the possibility, not contacting agencies,
not having a safety plan.
19 of the 20 said that if forced marriage were to be a
criminal offence they would not report it. They cited feelings of guilt,
not wanting to see parents going through the courts or imprisoned, being
ostracised from the family/community, being disowned from the family, fear of
reprisals, that they still loved their parents and would not be able to deal
with the emotional heartache. Women were also more inclined to say that rather
than go through a prosecution, they would get married and later seek divorce.
This is worrying, as women may be vulnerable to other abuses, including rape.[71]
4.54
Submitters and witnesses to the current inquiry did not refer to developments
in the United Kingdom, apart from a brief reference in the Department's submission.[72]
Proposed
legislation on slavery and people trafficking
4.55
On 30 May 2012, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like
Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 (bill) was introduced into the
House of Representatives by the Attorney-General.[73]
4.56
The bill proposes to better combat slavery and people trafficking by
capturing and criminalising a broad range of exploitative behaviour.[74]
Some of the proposed amendments include amending the Criminal Code
Act 1995 to: legally define the meaning of forced marriage (proposed
new section 270.7A); create two new offences of forced marriage (proposed new
section 270.7B); and broaden the definition of 'exploitation' (proposed new
section 271.1A).
4.57
As explained by the AIC in its submission, marriage is related to people
trafficking and slavery in two ways:
First, marriage can be used as a way of recruiting a person
into a situation of serious exploitation, using deception and/or coercion as
the means of achieving this (i.e. fraudulent or sham marriages). Second,
'servile marriage' is itself recognised in international law as a 'practice
similar to slavery' under the United Nations' Supplementary convention on
the abolition of slavery, the slave trade, and institutions and practices
similar to slavery.[75]
4.58
According to a representative from the Attorney-General's Department,
the results of consultation on an exposure draft of the bill were
'overwhelmingly supportive' of the criminalisation of forced marriage.[76]
4.59
A Department of Immigration and Citizenship representative advised:
[T]he [D]epartment has genuine concern regarding forced
marriage practices and the consequences for victims of forced marriage. We
therefore welcome the recent announcement by the Attorney-General on the
criminalisation of forced marriage[.][77]
4.60
However, in evidence to the committee, Mr Bill Gerogiannis from
NSW Legal Aid did not agree with the introduction of a criminal offence in
this area:
...the annexure to our submission included the National Legal
Aid discussion paper on forced and servile marriages...The sorts of issues that
were addressed there were non-legal avenues such as greater community legal
education and greater access for women, in particular, who are having
difficulties in this area and should be supported. [In] that submission, under
the heading 'Non-Legislative Measures', we think that those sorts of measures
that are mentioned in that earlier National Legal Aid submission ought to be
looked at. Also in the National Legal Aid submission there was concern about
further criminalising these areas. National Legal Aid's position, which we
support, is that the introduction of new criminal offences should again be
resisted.[78]
4.61
Other submitters and witnesses did not comment specifically on this
proposed legislation. However, in answer to a question on notice, CATWA
expressed its support for the bill.[79]
Research, education and support
measures
4.62
The committee heard from a number of submitters and witnesses that
addressing forced marriage in Australia will require a broad response. The
Department's view was that it might be necessary to adopt a wider focus than
the Prospective Marriage visa program because:
-
forced marriage could be present across Australia's Migration Program;
-
forced marriage could also occur where an Australian party is
made to travel overseas for the purpose of entering into a marriage; and
-
victims of forced marriage would require support that goes well beyond
the Department's portfolio responsibilities.[80]
4.63
In general, submitters and witnesses agreed that there is a need for
further research, education and support for prospective or actual victims of
forced marriage in Australia.
Need for further research
4.64
At the public hearing, CATWA referred to the United Kingdom's Forced
Marriage Working Group (Working Group).[81]
The Working Group was appointed in August 1999 to determine the extent of forced
marriages in the United Kingdom,[82]
and its recommendations ultimately led to the establishment of the FMU.
4.65
Ms Kaye Quek advised that CATWA would support the establishment of a
similar working group aimed at providing quantitative and qualitative research
into the extent of forced marriage in Australia:
We would like to see this type of quantitative and
qualitative research conducted where [women's shelters and refuges] are asked
to give evidence of their experience of forced marriage and then, based on
that, expanding it out to schools and religious organisations to begin to put
together a mapping exercise of where the practice is occurring. That would be a
good first step in terms of getting some hard evidence.[83]
4.66
The AIC advised that its current research program began four years ago
when it perceived a need to further investigate the role of marriage in people
trafficking. The program is one in a series of projects exploring a wide range
of elements of human trafficking into Australia. The committee understands that,
as at 2011, the research is funded by an ongoing appropriation and, in future,
the AIC intends to further examine the connection between marriage and people
trafficking in Australia.[84]
4.67
With reference to CATWA's call for further research, Dr Tomison told the
committee:
...it reminds me a bit of the consciousness-raising era of the
seventies around sexual assault and domestic violence against women in
Australia and other Western countries. It started slowly and it built. We
learned a lot more over the last 30 years around what happens in terms of
violence towards women, children and others in this society...
In my view, human trafficking research in this country is in
a similar infancy stage and we will be looking at doing more work to actually
expand on what we do not know and improving our knowledge over the next few
years. A number of agencies are starting to explore this issue...I do not think
that human trafficking and the issue of human trafficking for Australia will
ever rival the nature of community based violence that we have in this country.
But it is an important issue, and if people are being exploited and trafficked
into this country we need to make sure we are on top of it and that we know as
much as we can about it.[85]
Education and support measures
4.68
In a personal submission, Ms Emma Davidson argued that the community,
public servants, teachers and health care professionals all need to be better
educated on the distinction between an arranged marriage and a forced marriage.
Further:
We also need to know what to do if someone does talk about
being in a forced marriage – who can they be referred to for support that best
meets their needs?[86]
4.69
Dr Tomison from the AIC agreed:
With regard to help-seeking behaviour, both mainstream and
migrant community centres play a critical role in assisting women to leave
exploitative or violent situations. It is these less formal sources that often
provide a first point of contact for seeking help. The women in our study did
not seek formal help from the police or through immigration channels, but they
reached out to people in the community. How the community responds is therefore
really important.[87]
4.70
NSW Legal Aid and CATWA emphasised the importance of providing
information to migrants and the community more generally, to assist in the
understanding of what constitutes a forced marriage, the rights of victims, and
available services to assist in cases of family violence or sexual assault. For
example, Ms Quek from CATWA noted:
Legislation was brought in in America in the mid-2000s to try
to target the international marriage broker or mail order bride industry which
provided women who entered the country through such fiancée visas with
basically an information pack explaining to them that domestic violence is
illegal in the United States, with access to refuges, telephone numbers and
those types of things.[88]
4.71
CATWA also submitted that, in its view, the way in which the FMU in the United
Kingdom has addressed, or sought to address, the issue of forced marriage
exemplifies best practice:
Through the FMU, information and guidance is provided to
individual victims, professional, voluntary and statutory agencies, and schools
about the problem of forced marriage...In addition, the FMU itself provides
examples of what it considers best practice in relation to forced marriage.
These include measures such as the establishing of dedicated regional helplines
to provide advice to victims of the practice, and the appointing of specially
trained police officers to schools to educate and raise awareness amongst
teachers and students of the problem of forced marriage.[89]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page