6.1
In advocating for progress towards the elimination of child and forced marriage globally, the Australian government has undertaken advocacy work on child and forced marriage issues in a range of multilateral fora, including through:
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN);
the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime.
6.2
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) stated ‘the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women has consistently raised her concerns about child and forced marriage in relevant international fora’.
6.3
Walk Free stated that ‘multilateralism needs to come into force, because not one country alone, let alone Australia, can end child and forced marriage.’ Walk Free further elaborated in its submission that:
Engagement with international institutions and multilateral forums, such as the Beijing+25 Conference, G20 Women 20 Summit, UN Women, [UN Population Fund (UNFPA)] and UNICEF, are key avenues through which Australia can promote action to address child and forced marriage.
6.4
Anti-Slavery Australia stated that ‘robust and consistent advocacy in international fora is critical for the prevention of human trafficking and modern slavery (including forced marriage)’ , and further stated:
We support continued efforts by DFAT, in particular Australia’s Ambassador for People Smuggling Issues, Ambassador for Gender Equality, and Australia’s diplomatic network, to ensure these issues are recognised and addressed internationally.
6.5
Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans (ACRATH) recommended that the Australian Government ‘steps up its efforts in bilateral dialogues, multicultural engagements and forums’.ACRATH urged the Government to ‘take every available opportunity to highlight the issue of child and forced marriage whenever it meets with foreign governments and key interlocutors’.
United Nations (UN)
6.6
DFAT highlighted that Australia ‘has a strong record of advocacy in multilateral human rights fora … to ensure that the language, agreed by UN member states to characterise child and forced marriage reflects the seriousness of these violations and the complexity of the drivers.’
6.7
DFAT advised that resolutions relating to forced marriage and gender equality have been considered at UN bodies including the:
UN Commission on the Status of Women;
UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly;
UN General Assembly Third Committee on Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Issues; and
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
6.8
DFAT stated that ‘there were a number of specific agreed conclusions from the Commission on the Status of Women [in 2021], which related specifically to the issue of early and forced marriage’.
6.9
The Department of Home Affairs/Australian Border Force and DFAT stated in May 2021 it had ‘provided information about Australia’s commitment to combating forced marriage to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children, including child prostitution, child pornography, and other child sexual abuse material.’
6.10
DFAT stated that Australia consistently co-sponsors relevant resolutions on child, early and forced marriage, and associated resolutions at the ‘Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly’:
DFAT also advocates strongly through multilateral human rights fora to shape international norms on this issue, including through co-sponsoring the biennial resolution in the UN General Assembly Third Committee (Human Rights) on early, and forced marriage; the Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution on child, early, and forced marriage; the HRC resolution on trafficking in persons, especially women and children; and through the work of Special Mandate holders.
6.11
More generally, DFAT further advised that the Australian Government continues to identify opportunities to shape international debates on gender equality, including on child and forced marriage, through efforts to bolster the Australian Government’s representation in the UN system.
Commonwealth
6.12
DFAT stated that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and Commonwealth Women’s Forum in April 2018 had agreed to statements on child and forced marriage matters. The Commonwealth Women’s Forum in its outcome statement urged for development and implementation of national action plans:
Urge Heads to take decisive actions to develop, resource and implement holistic national action plans in alignment with the [Sustainable Development Goals] in order to deliver on the international and Commonwealth commitments to eliminate [child , early and forced marriage] and [female genital mutilation/cutting]. These should include work on education, access to community level resources, legislative and policy frameworks and better data to deliver on commitments to end both practices in alignment with the [Sustainable Development Goals] and the Kigali Declaration.
Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime
6.13
DFAT stated that ‘regional engagement on human trafficking is addressed through the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime. The Bali Process is the premier regional forum on these issues, bringing together source, transit and destination countries.’
6.14
The Department of Home Affairs advised that the Bali Process has 45 member countries and four member international organisations. The Australian Border Force stated ‘the Bali Process is co-chaired by Indonesia and Australia, and includes the Ad Hoc Group which brings together those most-affected member countries, and relevant international organisations, to address specific irregular migration issues in the region.’
6.15
The Australian Border Force also stated ‘Australia (the ABF) and Indonesia (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) co-chair the Bali Process Working Group on Trafficking in Persons, which aims to promote more effective and coordinated law and justice responses to combat trafficking in persons in the region.’
6.16
The ABF advised that this working group has identified human trafficking for the purposes of forced marriage as an emerging issue for consideration:
[The Bali Process Working Group on Trafficking in Persons] Forward Work Plan 2021-23, endorsed by member countries and organisations in June 2021, articulates the [Working Group’s] key priorities and activities over the next two years. This includes consideration of, and sharing experience related to, trafficking in persons for the purpose of forced marriage, and identifying areas for future research to increase members’ understanding of forced marriage.
6.17
Walk Free advised that it provides secretariat services to the Bali Process Government and Business Forum.
6.18
The Department of Home Affairs/ABF stated that it works with ‘Indo-Pacific partner governments to strengthen legal and policy frameworks to combat modern slavery’ through the Indo-Pacific Justice and Security Program (IP-JuSP). Among a number of engagements on human trafficking matters in 2019 and 2020, engagement through IP-JuSP included ‘a meeting of the Bali process working group … held virtually on 10 November 2020, providing a chance to share information on these issues’.
6.19
The Department of Home Affairs/ABF has also ‘invited non-government organisations to speak to international delegations about providing support and protection to victims-survivors of forced marriage in Australia as part of the IP-JuSP.’
ASEAN
6.20
DFAT stated that ASEAN had been ‘very active on these issues and trafficking issues’ and that it had ‘a very engaged dialogue’ with ASEAN.
6.21
The ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (ACTIP) was adopted in 2015 by eight ASEAN member countries: Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.
6.22
ACTIP is complemented by the ASEAN Plan of Action Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children which ‘aims to provide specific action plans within ASEAN Member States’ domestic laws and policies, as well as relevant international obligations, to effectively address regional challenges common to all ASEAN Member States’. It is further detailed in the ASEAN Plan of Action that:
In line with the relevant ASEAN instruments and Roadmap for an ASEAN Community relating to trafficking in persons, there is a need to have strong international cooperation and a comprehensive regional approach to prevent, suppress, and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, in all forms of sexual, labour, and organ trafficking.
6.23
DFAT stated that the ‘ASEAN-Australia Counter Trafficking program … increases capacity among law enforcement and court officials working on trafficking crimes.’
6.24
DFAT further stated that ‘the issue of trafficking for child or forced marriage has been increasingly identified by the program as an emerging issue in some countries in South-East Asia.’ As a result, DFAT advised that the ASEAN-Australia Counter-Trafficking Program ‘has commissioned a study looking into child protection risks facing children in ASEAN’ countries.
International models under consideration
6.25
Inquiry participants referred to overseas jurisdictions efforts to specifically address child and forced marriage practices, in particular forced marriage protection orders such as seen in the United Kingdom (UK).
6.26
The ABF stated that ‘the most notable [model] is the UK, with their forced marriage protection orders. [The ABF] have been reviewing the arrangements in the UK, factoring in how that influences the design of the model here in Australia.’
6.27
Regarding the UK model, Anti-Slavery Australia expressed that ‘there is value in looking at the experiences of the forced marriage unit [in the UK], particularly in relation to forced marriage orders.’
6.28
In the UK, a forced marriage protection order is intended to protect victims who are being forced into a marriage, or have already been forced into marriage. A factsheet published by the Courts and Tribunals Service in the UK details:
A Forced Marriage Protection Order is unique to each case and contains legally binding conditions and directions that change the behaviour of a person or persons trying to force someone into marriage ... The court can make an order in an emergency so that protection is in place straightaway.
6.29
The ABF stated that it was scoping the applicability of UK-style forced marriage protection orders in discussions with state and territories in Australia. The ABF elaborated that these discussions included a range of considerations, including how it would fit or complement existing legislation:
… what we’re looking at is: How does the forced marriage protection order model fit within existing legislation? How is it going to be set up in a complementary way? And how do you set it up so that you’ve got a clear pathway and so potential victims know which way to go? Do they go to a family violence solution, or do they go to the forced marriage proposed solution? These are all the discussions that we’re having at the moment.
6.30
Anti-Slavery Australia stated that the UK ‘have developed multi-stakeholder, multiagency guidelines that would provide guidance to government agencies and civil society organisations working within the context of forced marriage.’ Anti-Slavery compared this to Australia where non-government organisation (NGO) guidelines have been developed, but not with a multiagency perspective:
In Australia we have the NGO guidelines for working with trafficked people, and they set out standards of professional practice within the context of modern slavery. But developing a clear set of guidelines for all agencies that are likely to have carriage of matters related to survivors would be of great utility.
6.31
The Norway Competence Team against Forced Marriage, Female Genital Mutilation and Negative Social Control is ‘a national, inter-agency team of experts that advises public service employees in individual cases and provides competence building.’ The Department of Home Affairs advised in relation to the competence-building model seen used in Norway, it had ‘funded a grant in the most recent grants round, which is going to provide an opportunity for us to learn from that model and, obviously, through the grant funded organisation, to see if we can trial some of those learnings in an Australian context.’
Child and forced marriage clauses in trade agreements
6.32
Walk Free observed that ‘since the 1990s, human rights clauses have been progressively included within free trade agreements (FTAs), on topics including labour rights, gender equality, and environment protection.’
6.33
DFAT stated that ‘a number of our trade agreements … reinforce the international architecture that exists … already, whether that be labour provisions or environmental provisions.’ DFAT further stated ‘countries are [not necessarily] using trade agreements to enforce human rights mechanisms that don’t exist already.’
6.34
Walk Free stated that ‘historically, Australia [has] received criticism for an apparent reluctance to incorporate “non-trade issues” within trade agreements.’
6.35
Walk Free advocated that ‘[a]ny new bilateral or multilateral trade agreement must include a human rights clause that addresses the end of forced and child marriage in that country. This would link outcomes for women and girls to our international development agenda and economic investments’.
6.36
Walk Free identified that in recent trade agreements Australia has included human rights matters in free trade agreements:
Yet more recent trade agreements, such as Peru-Australia [Free Trade Agreement] in force as of 2020, incorporated provisions on labour rights, including on the elimination of forced labour and abolition of child labour, within the agreement.
6.37
Walk Free referred to precedents from the European Union, United States of America and Canada on the inclusion of human right clauses, as well as ‘the Australian Government’s recent similar actions’, and posited that ‘a natural progression for the Australian Government will be to include clauses addressing child and forced marriage within all trade agreements.’
Concluding comment
6.38
There has been sustained international activity on the issue of child and forced marriage, including in recent years across the United Nations, ASEAN, and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
6.39
The Committee acknowledges DFAT’s evidence that the Australian Government has used opportunities to highlight child and forced marriage as part of the broader international discourses on human trafficking and gender equality, and urges that the Australian Government continue to identify these opportunities to draw attention to this issue.
6.40
Multilateral forums provide the opportunity to seek agreement on consistent approaches to responding to human rights challenges across a range of nations. The Committee heard about legal frameworks and approaches in other parts of the world to respond to child and forced marriage practices, particularly those implemented by the UK Government.
6.41
The Committee acknowledges evidence from the Australian Border Force that alternative models that have been implemented by foreign governments are under consideration and consultation, as part of work on Action Item 23 of the National Action Plan to Combat Modern Slavery 2021-25 to develop a model for enhanced civil protections for people in, or at risk of forced marriage.
6.42
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government maintains Australia’s commitment as a regional and international leader by conducting targeted and careful advocacy of efforts to prevent and combat human trafficking and slavery, including child and forced marriage.
6.43
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continues and enhances its engagement in bilateral and multilateral dialogues to eliminate child and forced marriage.
Senator the Hon David Fawcett
Chair
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
1 December 2021
The Hon Kevin Andrews MP
Chair
Human Rights Sub-Committee
1 December 2021