|
May 15, 2008
Thai contract girls in Australia's sex industry? Wasn't human trafficking something that happened in Eastern Europe or Asia? Are there cases of one person treating another as his or her sexual property in Australia? Yes, for sure, as can be seen from this Parliamentary inquiry in 2004 by the House of Representatives Joint Committee on the Crime Commission.
Anne Gallagher says in The Age that sex slavery exists in Australia. Individual girls are brought over here from Thailand, Korea, China and other countries to meet Australia's growing demand for commercial and "exotic" sex. When the "contract girls" arrive in Australia they:
...owe a debt of between $35,000 to $50,000, an amount that is often inflated to cover employer "costs" such as medical tests and food. They are required to engage in sex work, without any payment, for as long as it takes to discharge that debt. "Contract girls" are not stupid and most end up understanding the nature of their exploitation very well. Many decide not to fight. They accept their fate and try to make the best of the period of their debt bondage — waiting for a time that they will be free to work normally or to go home. Others try to resist and escape. Physical violence, forced detention, withholding of identity documents and intimidation are used to control recalcitrant individuals.
Recently in Victoria, Judge Michael McInerney handed down a guilty finding to Wei Tang, ex-licensee of Club 417 in Brunswick Street, who kept five Thai women as slaves in the Melbourne brothel to "service" up to 900 men each over a period of months to pay off "debts" of up to $45,000.These women earned nothing in cash during the period of their "contract," while Wei Tang earned up to $43,000 per woman with each woman's "owner," including Tang, earning as much as $75,000.
In Sydney, a similar trial is currently underway involving the case of a 19-year-old Thai woman who was allegedly put to work in a Sydney brothel against her will.
Gallagher says that:
There is considerable room for improving Australia’s current legislative framework. While component offences are more or less covered, existing legislation only addresses certain of the possible exploitative outcomes of trafficking and even these in an extremely limited way.xv It does not criminalize trafficking per se and in fact does not even recognize the “movement” aspects such as recruitment, transportation and transfer. It also does not recognize aspects of migration fraud associated with trafficking. In summary, and as recognized by the Government’s own enquiry, existing criminal laws do not adequately reflect the realities of the trafficking tradexvi and fall far short of international standards.
Given the important distinctions between people smuggling and trafficking, can trafficking, forced prostitution and forced labour be legally linked to slavery? Is it slavery? Gallagher says that this linking is one of the main questions for the High Court in Queen v Wei Tang. Australia has strong laws against slavery, and they are based on and give effect to Australia's acceptance of one of the oldest of all international rules: the absolute prohibition of slavery. The High Court is being asked to look at this prohibition. What does it mean? Which practices does it cover and which does it exclude?
Update: May 17
We know more about the Wei Tang case. It all began in a brothel in Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, where the licensed owner, a Chinese immigrant named Wei Tang, had five Thai women working for her as prostitutes. They arrived in 2002 and 2003 on visas that were fraudulently obtained and worked for her under conditions that prosecutors would later allege amounted to slavery. The women had all worked in the Thai sex industry and knew they were to work as prostitutes here. Four of the women were "purchased" from Thai recruiters for about $20,000 each (one woman was bought from a "Sydney owner").
Upon arrival in Australia, they had little if any money or English and knew no one. They were told they were "contract girls" who owed a "debt" of between $40,000 and $45,000 that they had to work off (a figure much higher than they had been led to expect). This would involve providing sexual services for no payment for up to 900 men. They were housed in bedrooms in which they slept up to four at a time on mattresses on the floor. Their passports and return tickets were taken from them and locked away and their freedom of movement was restricted. They worked 10-to-12-hour shifts six nights a week just to reduce their "debt", and if they worked a seventh night could keep that money for themselves.
UIpdate 2
The history is this:
AUGUST 1998 Wei Tang granted prostitution service provider's licence to operate a brothel and escort agency business in Fitzroy (Club 417).
JUNE 2002 Paul Pick approved as manager of Club 417 under the Prostitution Control Act.
2002-2003 Five Thai women voluntarily agree to come to Australia to work as prostitutes. Thai recruiters were paid a sum of money, generally $20,000, as a purchase price for each woman. Women are told they must work off a total debt of up to $45,000.
JANUARY 2003 Tang, Pick and an associate, Thai national Donporn Srimonthan, arrested and charged. Srimonthan pleads guilty to three slave-trading offences and is jailed.
MAY 2005 Pick found not guilty of eight counts; the jury is hung in relation to other counts against him and all counts against Tang.
JUNE 2006 Tang is re-tried alone and convicted of five counts of possessing a slave and five counts of exercising over a slave a power attaching to the right of ownership, namely, the power to use. Sentenced to 10 years' jail with a non-parole period of six years.
FROM JULY 2007 Victoria's Court of Appeal quashes Tang's convictions and orders another re-trial. Tang is freed on bail. Federal prosecutors appeal to the High Court against the quashing of the convictions. Wei Tang cross-appeals to the High Court. Case began before the full bench this week.
|
Wow, what a surprise. Imagine some people not being honest when filling out an application to enter Australia. Why not one of those dumb self-reporting clauses that Centrelink includes in some of its forms? And to think some people advocate open borders.