‘They Are Here Without Chains,but With Invisible Chains’: Understandings of Modern Slavery Within the New South Wales Settlement Sector

Abstract

Modern slavery is a complex and clandestine social phenomenon that is poorly understood in the Australian context. The settlement sector is integral to Australia’s counter-slavery efforts, and yet, no Australian study has explicitly sought to explore how this group identifies and navigates modern slavery. This paper draws on surveys and interviews with workers in the New South Wales settlement sector, and offers new insights into how certain forms of modern slavery are understood and addressed by professionals working with newly arrived migrants. The findings of the study uncover some of the profound challenges staff encounter in detecting and responding to different exploitative practices. Furthermore, they underscore the significant disjunctions between existing legislative provisions that aim to address modern slavery, and the experiences and understandings of workers at the frontline of the issue. The study demonstrates the need for education and greater investment into modern slavery responses within the settlement sector, and multi-sectoral collaboration to proactively address the systemic issues engendering exploitation at a community level.

Keywords

Exploitation forced marriage migrants settlement sexual servitude slavery trafficking

Introduction

Modern slavery is a complex and often concealed social phenomenon that involves systematic crimes and human rights abuses. The internationally accepted definition of ‘slavery’ is outlined in the 1926 International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery, which defines slavery as ‘the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised’ (Davy, 2016: 183). Despite the criminalisation of different exploitative practices in many countries, modern slavery continues to advance and evolve as a highly lucrative and rapidly growing form of organised crime (Christ and Burritt, 2018; Zirnsak et al., 2017). There are a number of ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors that engender modern slavery and generate conditions in which individuals or groups can become vulnerable (Davy, 2016; Zirnsak et al., 2017). ‘Pull’ factors may include issues such as demand for cheap labour, and the financial profitability of these crimes for perpetrators (Davy, 2016; Zirnsak et al., 2017). Conversely, ‘push’ factors include poor socioeconomic conditions, gender-based violence, persecution, or discrimination, and individuals or groups may feel that there are no viable alternatives or may be susceptible to deception and manipulation (Zirnsak et al., 2017).

Modern slavery is a transnational issue spanning ‘source’ countries, where victims originate, ‘transit’ countries, through which they are trafficked or pass through, and ‘destination’ countries, which is the primary geographic location of their exploitation (Putt, 2007). Australia is predominantly a ‘destination country’ for modern slavery, since victims are largely brought to and exploited within the country, rather than being transported out from or through the country (Australian Government, 2015; Putt, 2007). International instruments such as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and its supplementary Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (Trafficking Protocol) have been fundamental in shaping Australia’s recognition of and response to human trafficking and slavery (Schofield et al., 2011). Australia has also ratified international conventions that address slavery-like practices such as forced marriage and forced labour, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, thereby accepting an obligation to combat these forms of exploitation (AHRC, 2012).

There is a lack of research in Australia to support evidence-based solutions and responses to modern slavery (Lyneham and Richards, 2014; Schloenhardt et al., 2012); nonetheless, Australia has undergone significant legislative reform to criminalise various forms of modern slavery. However, Davy (2017) argues that the emphasis on criminalisation in the Australian context has resulted in government initiatives that have failed to produce substantial results. Scholars and anti-slavery agencies have advocated for a holistic approach to improve detection efforts and responses to modern slavery, and have emphasised the crucial role of ‘first responders’ – who are likely to engage with at-risk communities – in mitigating exploitation (George et al., 2018; Zirnsak et al., 2017). The settlement sector is one such first responder group, comprising organisations that specialise in delivering support to migrants, a demographic that is particularly susceptible to modern slavery (Zirnsak et al., 2017). Settlement services have been present in Australia since the post-war migration programme in 1945, and have since grown exponentially to administer a wide range of initiatives aimed at assisting new migrants (Millbank et al., 2006).

This paper draws on surveys and interviews with 23 workers in the New South Wales (NSW) settlement sector, and explores how this key stakeholder group understands and responds to certain forms of modern slavery. Findings highlight the dissonance between existing legislative provisions that are established to address modern slavery and the understandings and experiences of professionals working with new migrants. The study demonstrates the need for initiatives that strengthen the settlement sector’s response to modern slavery and the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration to enact much needed comprehensive community-based counter-slavery efforts.

The Prevalence and Dynamics of Modern Slavery

The term ‘modern slavery’ lacks a precise legal definition and encompasses a variety of practices, including human trafficking, sexual servitude, forced labour, and forced marriage (Landau and Marshall, 2018; Zirnsak et al., 2017). These practices are characterised by conditions of exploitation for which consent is absent or otherwise impaired through the use of deception or force (COA, 2014). Obtaining accurate estimates of modern slavery both globally and domestically is problematic due to several factors, including victim underreporting, challenges associated with measuring clandestine activities, and terminological differences since various definitions are employed for exploitative practices across jurisdictions and research studies (CDPP, 2020; COA, 2014; Flynn et al., 2014; Putt, 2007). Prevalence figures on modern slavery draw primarily from criminal justice statistics – that is, the numbers of officially documented crimes (Gallagher, 2017; Lyneham et al., 2019). Such data offers only a partial representation of the problem and is heavily reliant on processes related to reporting and recording crimes (Lyneham et al., 2019). Quantification remains an ongoing challenge in Australia, where there are competing claims and significant discrepancies between existing estimates and numbers of known cases. For instance, while the Global Slavery Index estimated in 2016 that approximately 4,300 individuals experience modern slavery within Australia, only 273 suspected cases were identified domestically by authorities between 2004 and 2015 (George et al., 2018; Zirnsak et al., 2017). Official Australian statistics capture only instances where victims have reported exploitative practices and are cooperating with authorities to have these issues investigated (Zirnsak et al., 2017). Lyneham et al. (2019) estimate that for every modern slavery victim detected in Australia, approximately four victims remain undetected.

In Australia, sex trafficking or servitude constitutes the majority of slavery-related convictions (CDPP 2020; Zirnsak et al., 2017). However, it has become evident that labour exploitation occurs outside of sex work in many industries including agriculture, hospitality, and construction (Irwin, 2017; Zirnsak et al., 2017). Human trafficking occurs within larger migration patterns and involves ‘the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons for the purpose of exploitation’ (Putt, 2007; UNODC, 2004: 42). While human trafficking in and of itself does not constitute slavery, its exploitative end purposes include slavery and slavery-like practices (COA, 2017). A significant portion of trafficking cases documented in Australia includes debt bondage, which typically involves an inflated and arbitrary amount that perpetrators impose to enslave victims, as they are unable to repay the debt in a reasonable timeframe and are consequently rendered powerless to leave for fear of arrest or deportation (Davy, 2016). Forced labour is defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 29 (1930) as ‘all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily’ (UN, 2013). Forced labour is most commonly seen in businesses characterised by labour intensive activities and narrow profit margins, and victims in Australia are likely to work in lower-skilled occupations and hold temporary visas (Christ and Burritt, 2018; Zirnsak et al., 2017). There is substantial evidence to demonstrate that migrants are disproportionately affected by various forms of exploitation due to a multiplicity of reasons, including limited language skills and unfamiliarity with legal systems in host countries (UN, 2013; Zirnsak et al., 2017). Additionally, anecdotal reports from non-government organisations and unions suggest that vulnerable migrants such as asylum seekers are particularly at risk of experiencing exploitation in Australia (Zirnsak et al., 2017).

Gendered forms of modern slavery such as forced marriage often occur within familial contexts linked to complex sociocultural and relational dynamics, and may entail a range of exploitative conditions, including financial abuse, denial of education and employment, violence, movement restrictions, and unwanted pregnancy (Lyneham and Bricknell, 2018; Vidal, 2017). The practice of forced marriage is indicative of entrenched gender imbalances, driven by a range of cultural prescriptions around the management and control of female behaviour, and sometimes reflecting pressing practical concerns such as the need for migration sponsorship for a prospective partner (Lyneham and Bricknell, 2018; Sowey, 2018; Vidal, 2017). A study by Sowey (2018) highlights the social constraints and precarity faced by victims of forced marriage, in which women often prioritised upholding family honour over their own safety. Forced marriage has come to be recognised more recently as a form of modern slavery, although there is a dearth of reliable data on its incidence in Australia (Lyneham and Bricknell, 2018; Sowey, 2018). A range of factors contribute to poor detection, including the secrecy associated with cultural and familial pressures, and limited help-seeking by impacted women and communities who may be unaware of existing supports and legislation (Zirnsak et al., 2017). Furthermore, the vast majority of forced marriages are not legally registered due to the concealed nature of this crime (Lyneham and Bricknell, 2018).

Although sexual servitude mostly occurs in commercial settings such as brothels, it is distinct from decriminalised forms of sex work where consent is present, and can also take place in private settings and within intimate or family relationships (Australian Government, 2015; O’Brien, 2016). While sexual servitude predominantly involves prostitution, victims can also be procured for other activities including stripping and generating pornographic material (Christ and Burritt, 2018).

The Australian Response to Modern Slavery

Australia’s response to modern slavery is embedded within a criminal justice paradigm characterised by a strong policy focus on the prosecution of crimes. Slavery has been criminalised in Australia since 1824 due to the application of the Slave Trade Act 1824 (United Kingdom) (Davy, 2016). Offences relating to sexual slavery were later inserted into Division 270 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (CTH) in 1999, and in 2008, the High Court passed down the first slavery prosecution in Australia in the milestone case R v Wei Tang (2008) 237 CLR 1 (Schloenhardt et al., 2009). The ratification of the UNTOC and the Trafficking Protocol yielded significant reforms in Australian legislation in 2005, with offences of human trafficking and debt bondage established in Division 271 of the Criminal Code (COA, 2014; Davy, 2016). R v Dobie [2008] Southport District Court (unreported, Clare DCJ, October 20, 2008) was the first prosecution in Australia for offences related to human trafficking (Davy, 2016). Further amendments were made to the Criminal Code through the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-Like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act 2013 (CTH), which extended the existing range of slavery-related offences to include forced marriage and forced labour (Davy, 2016).

Despite this emphasis on criminal law reform, successful prosecutions have been low. Of the total number of investigations related to modern slavery, only a small portion result in successful convictions (Davy, 2016; Lyneham et al., 2019). For instance, no forced marriage case has yet passed through the criminal justice system under the standalone offences stipulated in the Criminal Code, although the first reported case of forced marriage in Australia dates back to 1994 (Lyneham and Bricknell, 2018; Vidal, 2017). An example of a case that has passed through civil jurisdictions is Kreet v Sampir (2011) 11 Fam LR 405, where the 17-year-old victim’s family employed threats and deceptive means to conduct her marriage in India (Lyneham and Bricknell, 2018; Zirnsak et al., 2017). Modern slavery is difficult to investigate and prosecute in Australia due to a variety of reasons, including its transnational nature and the subtle means utilised by perpetrators to recruit and exploit victims (Davy, 2016; Putt, 2007). While in parts of the world such as Eastern Europe, violence and kidnapping are frequently employed to recruit victims, anecdotal evidence suggests that more subtle tactics are used to enslave people in Australia, such as psychological coercion, movement restrictions, confiscation of personal documents, threats of violence, and debt bondage (Davy, 2016; George et al., 2018; Simmons et al., 2013). With the recent introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (CTH), Australia has begun to make strides in addressing modern slavery, particularly labour exploitation within large businesses and global supply chains (Parliament of Australia, 2019; Zirnsak et al., 2017). There is currently legislative momentum in NSW to strengthen modern slavery responses, including the landmark appointment of an Anti-slavery Commissioner and enhanced supports for victims (Parliament of NSW, 2020). Notably, NSW is the first Australian jurisdiction to introduce legislation against modern slavery (Barker, 2018).

Nonetheless, Australia’s focus on criminalisation has generated government initiatives that have largely obscured victim rehabilitation and human rights issues (Davy, 2017). Existing response frameworks are centralised at the federal level, reinforced by the fact that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) is the only agency able to investigate cases of modern slavery (George et al., 2017; Zirnsak et al., 2017). The Australian government has endeavoured to provide holistic victim support through its flagship initiative the Support for Trafficked People Program (STPP), which comprises casework services delivered by the Australian Red Cross (Burn et al., 2012; Davy, 2017). One significant limitation of this program, however, is that the provision of ongoing support is conditional upon assisting the AFP with investigation and the prosecution of perpetrators, thereby precluding victims who are unable or unwilling to assist authorities from accessing protection and aid (Davy, 2017; George et al., 2018). As modern slavery entails significant risks and abuse of trust, cooperation with law enforcement and criminal justice processes may be challenging or unfeasible for victims (Leishman, 2007). Survivors are required to provide evidence and may experience secondary traumatisation during this process (Davy, 2017). The conditionality of national support programmes on victim cooperation with police demonstrates Australia’s prioritisation of criminal justice over victim rights and wellbeing (Davy, 2017). Additionally, criminalisation approaches are limited in their ability to drive prevention and address the systemic push and pull factors influencing modern slavery (Davy, 2016; Leishman, 2007; Zirnsak et al., 2017).

Alternative Community-Based Approaches

In contrast to the existing policing focus, researchers and counter-slavery practitioners have instead endorsed a comprehensive and intersectoral approach to modern slavery that is flexible and attuned to the myriad of complex victim needs, such as housing, material assistance, health, education, migration, safety, and compensation (AHRC, 2012; George et al., 2017). Key stakeholders including Anti-Slavery Australia (ASA) have called for an expansion of current referral pathways and greater inclusion of community agencies, to promote a holistic approach that is effective in building victims’ trust and improving rates of detection and rehabilitation (ASA, 2012; George et al., 2018). However, only a few community-based initiatives are in place to combat modern slavery (George et al., 2018). Examples have included specialist anti-slavery legal support provided by ASA, accommodation offered by the Salvation Army for trafficked women, and education administered by Project Respect to victims of sexual slavery (Burn et al., 2012). There is a notable dearth of coordination and collaboration within current community-based responses, which are riddled with gaps in service provision (Burn et al., 2012; George et al., 2018). For instance, workers from a range of organisations remarkably stated in one Australian study that it is preferable to seek support for trafficking victims from domestic violence programmes than anti-slavery initiatives, due to the complexities in these service pathways (Lyneham and Richards, 2014). Additionally, while most services focus on victim rehabilitation, there is a pressing need to cultivate prevention programmes that proactively reduce exploitation at a community level (George et al., 2017; Sowey, 2018).

Various anti-slavery actors have identified the key role that ‘first responders’ – that is, those who work directly with individuals and communities at risk of experiencing modern slavery – could play in identifying and supporting potential and actual victims (George et al., 2018; Zirnsak et al., 2017). This includes professionals from pertinent fields such as law enforcement, healthcare, education and settlement services (George et al., 2018). Australian research with professional first responders offers some valuable insights on how they conceptualise certain exploitative practices, and uncovers some information gaps and misconceptions. For instance, Irwin’s (2017) survey exploring the understandings of 87 frontline police in Tasmania regarding human trafficking found that 26 officers either conflated or confused trafficking with people smuggling, and 23 officers would not report a suspected trafficking case to the AFP. Kotnik et al. (2007) gathered data from police in Melbourne through semi-structured surveys and interviews to explore their perceptions of sex trafficking. The study notably found that, of 55 police, only 80% were aware of the existence of sex trafficking in Australia. Just 31% were aware of federal legislation on trafficking and sexual servitude, and only 34.5% were aware of relevant state legislation.

Other Australian studies suggest varying awareness of modern slavery across professional sectors, alongside a consistent concern regarding Australia’s policy focus on criminal justice in counter-slavery response. In George et al.’s (2018) interview study with various service providers, participants reflected on how such one-dimensional policies inhibit the provision of adequate and appropriate services, with some suggesting that current approaches are re-traumatising for victims. These findings are consistent with broader literature critiquing Australia’s strong emphasis on criminalisation. Schofield et al. (2011) undertook semi-structured interviews in a qualitative study with organisations from multiple sectors, who similarly discussed how a national policy approach favouring criminalisation negatively impacts service provision. Participants also had varying and uncertain understandings of human trafficking, with one participant dismissing debt bondage as an indicator of victimisation.

While existing research offers useful insights on key first responder groups, Australian studies have not explicitly sought to explore how the settlement sector identifies and navigates modern slavery. It is on the basis of this need that this study has been formulated: to fill existing research gaps and yield valuable data that highlights the knowledge and experiences of the settlement sector.

The Study: Understandings of Modern Slavery Within the NSW Settlement Sector

This study aimed to examine how workers in the NSW settlement sector recognise and respond to modern slavery. The community services delivered by this sector enable them to be readily accessible to vulnerable groups and make their role indispensable in offering neutral, third-party assistance to at-risk individuals who may not wish to engage with the AFP (AHRC, 2012; Schloenhardt and Hunt-Walshe, 2012). As a victim’s reluctance to seek help may be compounded by cultural and lingual barriers, settlement services could be key in mitigating these obstacles through their expertise in employing culturally sensitive approaches (AHRC, 2012; Putt, 2007). Survivors of human trafficking and slavery also require trauma-informed assistance to cope with and recover from various distressing events (George et al., 2018). The settlement sector is well positioned to execute such support, as it includes organisations experienced in delivering trauma-informed initiatives.

Though settlement services are vital to Australia’s fight against modern slavery, to date, there is no focused Australian study of the understandings of modern slavery within this sector. Accordingly, this study sought to explore the construction of a few forms of modern slavery amongst settlement workers in NSW and examine their recommendations for responding to the problem. The study was guided by three key research questions:

How do workers conceptualise slavery, human trafficking, sexual servitude, forced labour and forced marriage? Are they aware of the existence of these issues in Australia?

How are workers encountering and responding to these issues in their professional practice?

How could the response of the settlement sector to modern slavery be improved?

A mixed methods methodology was employed to investigate settlement professionals’ understandings via a survey and interviews. 22 workers completed the survey and 5 workers volunteered for a 1-hour interview. In total, 23 staff participated in the study, drawn from 6 settlement organisations in NSW.

Survey Recruitment, Data Collection and Analysis

The researcher utilised purposive and snowball sampling methods and contacted potential organisations by phone to scope their interest to be involved in the research. The researcher’s professional experience in the settlement sector assisted in engaging key contacts within organisations, and tailoring the research opportunity to present the relevance of the study. Managers from interested agencies distributed recruitment material and a link to an online survey to appropriate staff via email. All staff were able to nominate themselves anonymously by accessing the survey independently. The survey included: a multiple-choice question asking participants to reflect on and nominate destination countries for human trafficking, four short fictional vignettes where participants were asked to select the most appropriate labels or descriptions for the scenario in a multiple-choice format, and two open-ended questions about their preferred referral pathways and response strategies for suspected cases. Modern slavery practices were presented within case study scenarios, as workers are likely to encounter these issues in highly contextual ways.

The survey was piloted with legal and policy professionals at Anti-Slavery Australia to strengthen the vignettes and ensure that they align well with the legal definitions of the respective forms of modern slavery, and also clearly demonstrate some of the common indicators seen in practice. This process was undertaken to have the survey validated by topic experts.

Survey participants were from a variety of cultural backgrounds and were predominantly female, which is to be expected in a sector characterised by a widely multicultural and female-dominated workforce. Concerted efforts were made to recruit participants performing a wide range of roles involving both direct and indirect work with migrant communities, and delivering services across various geographic locations, to further diversify the mix of experiences. The roles, cultural backgrounds, and service locations of survey participants are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Survey participants’ role, cultural background and location of service.

Role	No.	Cultural background	No.	Location	No.
Casework/Client Support	12	Middle-Eastern	3	South-West Sydney	14
Senior Management	2	African	4	South-East Sydney	2
Administration	1	East-Asian	3	Inner-West Sydney	1
Community Development	3	South-Asian	7	Inner-City Sydney	1
Team Leader	2	Western-European	4	North Sydney	1
Fundraising	1	Eastern-European	1	Western Sydney	6
Student	2			NSW-wide	2

NB: These demographic details have been clustered into broader categories to promote anonymity. Some participants performed dual roles, while others delivered services in multiple geographic locations, thereby accounting for numbers greater than the total survey sample size.

Multiple-choice responses garnered quantitative data that was analysed using simple frequencies, while qualitative data from open-ended questions was coded and organised using thematic analysis.

Interview Recruitment, Data Collection and Analysis

Participants were able to self-nominate for a follow-up interview at the end of the online survey or contact the researcher directly to express interest. Interviews ranging from 40 to 60 minutes were conducted face-to-face at locations convenient for participants, including onsite at their agencies. Five semi-structured interviews with workers gathered thick descriptions of their conceptualisations of slavery, human trafficking, sexual servitude, forced labour, and forced marriage, as well as the ways that professionals distinguish between these terms and identify key indicators. Interviewees were also asked to describe existing and/or potential strategies to support suspected cases, and reflect on initiatives within their own organisation that may contribute to modern slavery mitigation and response.

The interview sample consisted of a balanced representation across organisations and a diversity of cultural backgrounds and professional experiences, thereby including a variety of perspectives and fostering the anonymity of participants. The roles, cultural backgrounds, and service locations of interview participants are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Interview participants’ role, cultural background and location of service.

Role	No.	Cultural background	No.	Location	No.
Casework/Client Support	3	South-American	1	South-West Sydney	2
Community Development	2	South-Asian	3	South-East Sydney	2
		East-Asian	1	Inner-City Sydney	1
				Western Sydney	1

NB: These demographic details have been clustered into broader categories to promote anonymity. Some participants delivered services in multiple geographic locations, thereby accounting for numbers greater than the total interview sample size.

Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed for analysis. Interview data was coded according to the principles of thematic analysis, as it is a widely used method in qualitative research and offers a flexible and useful framework to organise rich and detailed data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Data analysis was conducted in an ongoing iterative process until conceptual saturation was attained and strong themes emerged. These findings were then examined to determine how they correspond and contrast with, and build upon some of the key discoveries in literature.

Ethical Considerations

As the NSW settlement sector is relatively small, measures were employed to promote participant anonymity and ensure that workers are not identifiable based on their demographic characteristics, or their responses. Participation in both the survey and interview was entirely confidential and the identity of participants was unknown to colleagues and managers. Care was taken to exclude unnecessary identifiers such as names and ages, and the precision and detail of identifiers such as professional occupations and cultural backgrounds was reduced in data analysis through aggregation. Where client experiences were discussed in interviews, any information that might identify clients was modified or removed. As the interviews explored sensitive topics, appropriate measures were made available to promote participant safety and mitigate the risk of distress, such as taking breaks, stopping the interview, and contacting appropriate services for immediate and confidential support.

Study Limitations

This exploratory research has a small sample size and functions as a pilot study. Therefore, findings cannot be generalised across the settlement sector. Additionally, it includes organisations that primarily operate in metropolitan NSW, thereby excluding the experiences of workers in regional areas. It is also important to note that, as conceptual and legal definitions of exploitative practices contain ambiguities and vary between jurisdictions and legal instruments, this may impact the validity of data gathered (Flynn et al., 2014).

Findings

The findings of the study are presented in three sections. The first explores how workers conceptualised practices related to modern slavery, and the second examines in more detail how they navigated issues of consent and control in client experiences of exploitative circumstances. The third section presents data on participants’ current response to modern slavery and their recommendations for policy and practice improvements.

Workers’ Conceptualisations of Exploitative Practices

Results from both the survey and interviews indicated that workers had an uncertain understanding of different forms of modern slavery, which may be impacting on their capacity to detect and respond to these issues. It is notable that interviewees unanimously reported having no direct professional engagement with anyone who they suspected had experienced human trafficking and/or slavery. However, while denying the presence of these issues amongst their client cohort, most workers struggled to define human trafficking and sexual servitude, and some evinced significant misunderstandings. For example, over half of the survey respondents (55%, n = 12) confused and/or conflated human trafficking with people smuggling, which is different from trafficking as it is typically conducted on a payment-for-service basis and involves consent (COA, 2014). Notably, 14% of participants (n = 3) did not classify Australia as a country in which human trafficking occurs. In interview, one worker described infidelity and legal sex work as forms of sexual servitude. These responses indicate that perhaps limited worker understanding is contributing to low detection in practice, rather than necessarily the absence of these issues.

In interview, 3 of 5 participants’ understandings of the term ‘slavery’ stemmed from the historical enslavement of African Americans, suggesting that the concept of slavery is not readily viewed through a contemporary lens or associated with the Australian context.

Participant B: “The only connection I can make with the ‘slave' word is in those days…white Americans you know they made slaves”.

Participant D: “Well, usually the first thing you think of is like slavery, you know, back in the 17…1800s”.

Participant E: “I think of Abraham Lincoln first. Slavery, to me, is what those people experienced”.

Although workers denied the existence of slavery and trafficking in their clients’ circumstances, they shared stories from their professional and personal experience that were highly indicative of servitude and slavery-like practices. In particular, forced labour and forced marriage emerged as dominant themes. While interviewees refrained from employing the term ‘forced labour’, they reported witnessing a variety of indicators of labour exploitation, including underpayment; unsafe work environments and associated injuries that remain unaddressed; excessive hours of work; and inadequate protections, including a lack of insurance. The blurred boundaries between forced labour and a broader spectrum of exploitative or unsafe labour practices were also evident in the survey. When provided with a case study of forced labour, 73% of respondents (n = 16) confused forced labour with merely poor working conditions. Two interviewees whose roles included engagement with university students spoke of how some international students experience labour exploitation.

Participant D: “I’ve worked with international students coming to study English and they work of course on the side, and [exploitation] is absolutely rampant”.

Participant B: “There are a lot of Chinese students here and I think they work in the cafes, and I don’t know how much they are actually getting paid”.

As many settlement service professionals are themselves from migrant backgrounds, the sector is characterised by rich firsthand experience. For instance, participant A spoke of both witnessing and being subjected to poor working conditions and potentially forced labour as a new migrant in Australia. Their circumstances comprised threats, withholding of wages and acts of violence.

“That for me was an experience because I was fairly intelligent, well educated, with English. I didn’t get paid. I remember one day physically they pushed me…this person used to grab people, push people, not allow you to sit. I wanted to get paid but I said you know what, leave it. I don’t think my life is worth $500”.

When asked about forced marriage, workers described it in the context of families and often associated the practice with marriage for migration purposes. They frequently viewed forced marriage through the lens of domestic violence (DV) and discussed the significant crossovers between the two issues. Participants alluded to the established sectoral knowledge on DV as a useful analytical framework in detecting forced marriage and noted a variety of indicators relating to DV that are applicable to forced marriage, including financial control and movement restrictions.

Participant D: “There’s a kind of unwillingness to engage [from the client]…so I suppose it’s quite similar to signs of DV. There is control happening back at home”.

This strong association with DV is understandable, given that forced marriage is also a form of gender-based violence centred on power imbalance that shares many characteristics with DV (Vidal, 2017). However, participants suggested that this is also due to the fact that forced marriage as an issue is inadequately conceptualised in comparison with DV: as the latter receives substantially more attention within the settlement sector, where various initiatives aim to educate workers and communities alike about the issue. Participant D suggested that, in direct client work, simple categories and labels could be counter-productive, and shared how they foster trust through using non-stigmatising language and refraining from assigning definitive labels to client experiences.

“Often it’s very hard to use that word like ‘oh this is a forced marriage’, ‘this is domestic violence’…we don’t use the term domestic violence. We talk about happy families, safe families, healthy relationships…and then introduce the idea that way as a kind of soft introduction”.

Navigating the Murky Waters of Consent and Control

In interview, participants emphasised consent as a vital element in determining whether someone has experienced slavery and exploitation. For instance, participant C stated:

“Slavery…I guess just the instinctual response would be denial of freedom”.

Workers also highlighted some overt and subtle factors that could constrain an individual’s ability to freely and fully provide consent. They spoke of a variety of mechanisms used by perpetrators to elicit ‘consent’, including deception, threats, physical force and violence, movement restrictions, confiscation of personal documents, and abuse of vulnerability. This illustrates a nuanced understanding of consent that critically analyses the nature of coercion and deception, and considers the subtle tactics used to enslave people in Australia (Davy, 2016).

Participant A: “The idea of having somebody in slavery underground and behind doors…it’s not reality. They are here without chains, but with invisible chains”.

However, participants described uncertainties around assessing the extent of freedom or control present in clients’ circumstances, and spoke of the ambiguities involved in interpreting complex sociocultural realities to determine whether consent has been provided freely.

Participant A: “Here is the [belief] that people come of their own volition and being an adult, you can choose your lifestyle, but saying that…you come, you have the option, but sometimes the option is not freely [there] to choose”.

Participant D on forced marriage: “It is really tricky because where is that line where it crosses into domestic violence? Because [in] a lot of cultural backgrounds, it is common for say, the husband to hold the money, but at what point does it become controlling?”

Participant C discussed the challenge of navigating consent in highly complex cases with multiple overlapping traumas and vulnerabilities, and reflected on a suspected case of sexual servitude where the victim had refugee experiences, significant mental health issues and an intellectual disability.

“And she was just being held against her will in this house and there were issues with her not being able to articulate her wishes, so she was just saying she wanted to stay there”.

Participant A struggled to articulate how they would recognise coercion in situations where clients outwardly provide consent.

“The willingness…well not the willingness…kind of like the compliance…I mean the consent is there, but forced consent kind of thing”.

Workers also reflected on issues beyond the dichotomous perpetrator-victim relationship and delved into the ambiguities involved in ascertaining agency and consent amidst systemic factors that are often more difficult to pinpoint. Broader issues such as gender roles and expectations, caring responsibilities, vulnerabilities linked to migration, and financial hardship were listed as factors constraining consent. Participant E provided an example of the psychological pressure exerted on victims of forced marriage at a community level by means of entrenched sociocultural norms and attitudes, with coercion emerging from various sources within family and community networks.

“They’re not giving the child a chance to take the decision…not only parents…the aunties, uncles, and grandparents…everyone interfering in that marriage. They mentally brainwash the person”.

Yet, participants unanimously stated that the most prominent factors restricting client freedom are the systemic issues associated with migration.

Participant D: “We like to think I suppose that we have better protections for people but the reality is, for a migrant, it’s not the case”.

Workers described how victims of forced marriage would experience additional challenges if their visas and prospects of migrating to Australia were inextricably linked to their perpetrator/s, thereby fostering dependency and a reluctance to report the issue. People with refugee experiences were reported to experience multiple additional issues that further inhibit freedom, including exposure to trauma, mistrust of authorities, and a sense of obligation towards Australia for granting them protection. Some participants whose roles involved working with asylum seekers reported that this group had little agency, due to the fear of deportation and the intense pressure they experience to attain and retain work, owing to Australia’s punitive policy approach towards this demographic.

Participant E: “Those who came here on humanitarian visas…they think that we claimed protection and we need to do everything…they can’t have a voice”.

Improving the Settlement Sector’s Response to Modern Slavery

In the survey and interviews, participants were asked about the strategies they would employ to prevent, detect and respond to exploitative practices. In regards to prevention, workers emphasised providing education to clients and communities with a focus on their legal rights, to help them identify and mitigate exploitative situations. Most participants flagged information workshops that are commonly delivered by settlement services to new migrants as a prime opportunity to educate and reach at-risk communities. These workshops cover topics such as employee rights, taxation, and family law. They also provide information on key agencies, including Legal Aid and Fair Work Ombudsman.

Participant C: “That’s like a soft entry into maybe trafficking and exploitation…so in that way I reckon the settlement sector is really well placed to reach those communities in those sort of soft entry ways by talking about employment, talking about the law and their rights”.

Other initiatives listed by participants as mechanisms to reach at-risk individuals included youth leadership programmes, women’s groups, employment readiness initiatives and outreach community events. If encountering a suspected case of modern slavery, 32% of survey participants (n = 7) indicated that they would prioritise the individual’s immediate needs (relating to matters such as housing, finances, health and legal assistance) and accordingly make referrals to a range of relevant services. 23% of survey participants (n = 5) indicated that their initial response to suspected cases would entail assessing and reducing risks to the client, as they viewed client safety as the first and foremost priority. A few participants (n = 3) highlighted the importance of providing adequate information about reporting pathways and supporting the client to contact relevant authorities, should they choose to do so. One survey respondent indicated that they would not know how to address suspected cases.

In the survey, workers listed a range of agencies that they would refer suspected cases to, including Legal Aid and the NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors (STARTTS). Figure 1 shows the agencies suggested by survey participants as points of referral for suspected cases. Agencies that were infrequently listed by participants have been clustered together. It is notable that this list stretched to 5 other government departments and 18 other organisations and institutions, including the Fair Work Ombudsman, International Organization for Migration and Scarlet Alliance, which suggests a lack of consensus and a diversity of referral patterns amongst survey respondents.

Figure 1.

Points of referral for suspected cases.

There was a relatively high level of endorsement for involving police in modern slavery cases, as 86% of survey participants (n = 19) reported that they would involve law enforcement agencies. However, only 45% (n = 10) specified that they would engage the AFP. Similarly, 40% of interviewees (n = 2) stated that they would include the AFP. This is significant, as the AFP is the only established pathway to report cases (George et al., 2017), however, less than half of this study’s participants would refer to them. Interviewees were somewhat cautious about referring suspected cases to the AFP and questioned the degree of cultural sensitivity they might employ.

Participant B: “Sometimes with the [AFP] officers you know, there is a big cultural gap…you can refer them over to the AFP, but then, you want to make sure there is someone like a Multicultural Liaison Officer involved”.

Participants also raised concerns around the potential for victims to feel disempowered or unsupported in the process of a police investigation, with one worker stating that involving the AFP might present a suite of challenges for client wellbeing.

Participant C: “Have a support worker there, handholding them through the whole process and telling them 'this is what’s happening now'. And letting them know that they haven’t done anything wrong because there is stigma associated with it. That’s actually another issue. We can all be trained to make that call to the AFP…but they need to be equally empowered and be part of the process…they have to be involved and understand what’s going on”.

Notably, both Participants B and C recommended having an additional worker involved to promote cultural sensitivity and ensure the provision of adequate information and emotional support. Rather than a criminal justice model, workers emphasised the role of professional knowledge and skills within community-based agencies in addressing these complex cases. For instance, one participant reflected on their work securing housing for women escaping domestic violence and another on their position in an Intensive English School. Both noted how their respective roles enabled them to deliver essential assistance to possible victims of forced marriage. The cultural diversity of workers in the sector was also highlighted as a significant strength, as their cultural backgrounds promoted a nuanced understanding of control and coercion in community contexts. Beyond the client-worker relationship, such cultural expertise was also thought to be instrumental in informing the development of appropriate and relevant organisational strategies.

Participant D: “It does help that they have an actual understanding of this culture from an insider’s point of view…we are always looking at ways we can make our strategies culturally responsive”.

It is important to note, however, that only one participant identified a colleague within the sector who is well-informed on modern slavery. The general consensus among interviewees was that there is a lack of established policies and practice pertaining to modern slavery within the settlement sector. They indicated that, as a result, this issue receives little attention and there is no streamlined approach, thus making it difficult to respond to suspected cases.

Participant C: “We don’t really have any explicit policy. We don’t have any procedures or mandates on 'this is what happens if you have a client that is being trafficked'…it’s not even on the agenda. It’s sad. So it goes to show that it’s a really overlooked area in this sector when it shouldn’t be”.

Two participants stated that as workers mostly lack experience and knowledge in the area of modern slavery, they seek support from other staff in an ad hoc manner when issues emerge, with varying degrees of success. Participant D spoke of the significant disparities in knowledge on modern slavery within their organisation and how this impacts practice.

“I would say it’s mostly one person that has like all of the comprehensive and holistic knowledge of the issues to deal with it…so only a very small portion would be confident in dealing with this, say, independently”.

Remarkably, all of the interviewees reported not having completed or seen any training relating to modern slavery, with participant D stating:

“All my knowledge is just [acquired] unintentionally”.

Some workers highlighted the substantial need for training that educates staff on identifying indicators and employing response strategies, including referrals to key agencies: one worker stated that such training should be made mandatory for all settlement staff. The importance of a culturally sensitive approach to training was flagged by participant C, as they critically reflected on how existing training on other issues such as DV are inappropriately developed within a Westernised framework.

“The context is always [a] really Western sort of culture…the assumption is being made that you’re a white woman who can speak [English], who feels empowered and have been taught your whole life to, you know, put your hand up when you need it…all those assumptions don’t even apply to our cohort”.

Two participants reflected on how topics relating to modern slavery scarcely feature in conversations at multidisciplinary interagency meetings, indicating that these issues are seldom prioritised at a broader level across sectors. A few participants described how resource limitations and understaffing caused by funding restrictions significantly impact practice, as it results in workers allocating less time towards deprioritised issues such as modern slavery.

Participant D: “I don’t think that we’re very well equipped to handle [forced marriage]…our workers are mostly employed part-time because of limited funding…I wish we could do more but it’s always like competing priorities”.

Participant A: “I didn’t really have time to actually get the story of how they got to Australia, or if the marriage was forced or not”.

Discussion and Implications

This study examined understandings and responses to modern slavery within the NSW settlement sector – a key first responder group that is integral to Australia’s counter-slavery efforts. Responses from settlement staff indicated limited clarity on different forms of modern slavery. Workers denied encountering ‘severe’ practices such as trafficking and slavery, yet shared examples that were highly indicative of slavery and slavery-like conditions. This disjunction reflected, in part, misunderstandings about the nature of modern slavery, as the concept of ‘slavery’ was not readily viewed within the context of contemporary Australia in interviews, and some workers did not consider Australia to be a destination country for trafficking. The terminology prescribed by legislation was not readily understood or applied in practice, but rather, workers intuitively recognised manifestations of modern slavery along a continuum of exploitative experiences. While workers refrained from using the term ‘forced labour’, several examples of labour exploitation emerged, with one worker describing the issue as ‘absolutely rampant’. These practices were perceived to be commonplace and pervasive, and were not seen to warrant the allocation of more serious labels. This feedback points to the embeddedness of slavery and slavery-like practices within routine power differentials evident in the labour force and in family and community contexts. Participants viewed consent as a key element in identifying exploitation and critically reflected on some of the overt and subtle means used to enslave people. However, workers described difficulties around determining the extent of freedom or control present in complex sociocultural realities, particularly when systemic factors such as financial hardship and gender roles play a significant part in influencing client agency. This highlights some of the profound challenges involved in detecting these issues in practice. A significant tension lies in the fact that, while workers grapple with employing narrow or rigid interpretations of complex and overlapping issues, they are also required to understand and work with the categorisations applied by the law and the agencies instated to respond to suspected cases.

Workers identified a lack of training, expertise, established policies and streamlined practices pertaining to modern slavery within the settlement sector. This was evidenced by the fact that none of the interviewees had received any training on modern slavery, and there was a lack of consensus amongst survey respondents regarding points of referral for suspected cases. These divergent views around referral pathways are reflective of broader uncertainties within the Australian public regarding appropriate responses to modern slavery (Schloenhardt et al., 2012). Settlement workers identified the substantial need for education within the sector, to train staff on identifying indicators of exploitation and executing response strategies. Furthermore, it was recommended that such training must be delivered in a culturally sensitive manner, as existing education on topics such as DV were seen to be inappropriately embedded within a Westernised paradigm. Indeed, cultural sensitivity was a prominent theme across interviews, as participants emphasised the need to be mindful of cultural nuances when formulating support for at-risk communities. This is a salient point, considering the complex and varied responses that victims of modern slavery – particularly women from culturally diverse backgrounds – employ in navigating abusive and oppressive situations (Mirza, 2018). Workers did, however, utilise the established knowledge on DV to construct their understandings of forced marriage and observed the strong interrelations between the two issues. This finding underscores a prime opportunity to build on existing DV responses and incorporate policies and practices that take forced marriage into consideration. Given the disproportionate impact of modern slavery on migrants, particularly vulnerable migrants, established in the literature and corroborated by the feedback from settlement workers, educational efforts should also address the systemic and endemic issues that produce susceptibility in migrant communities.

Settlement staff identified a role for the police in assisting suspected cases. However, despite the focus in public policy on the AFP, less than half of the participants articulated that they would contact the AFP, with some questioning the agency’s approach concerning cultural sensitivity and victim empowerment. This is a significant finding, as it indicates low levels of trust in the only agency able to investigate modern slavery cases (George et al., 2017). One key recommendation that emerged through the interviews is assigning a community worker or multicultural liaison to offer victims adequate support in engaging with the AFP. This may mitigate some of the challenges that victims encounter in investigation processes (Leishman, 2007) and ensure that their wellbeing is prioritised. Nevertheless, as modern slavery entails considerable risks and abuse of trust, there remains a substantial need for non-conditional support beyond the current model of the STPP (Davy, 2017; Leishman, 2007). The settlement sector is well placed to execute and champion such counter-slavery efforts, given their specialisation in migrant support, ability to reach vulnerable individuals, and expertise in delivering culturally sensitive and trauma-informed services (AHRC, 2012; Millbank et al., 2006). However, there is a need for greater funding and investment into modern slavery responses within the sector, as workers discussed how inadequate resourcing inhibits their ability to address this deprioritised issue.

Conclusion

While scholars and anti-slavery organisations have called for an intersectoral approach to holistically address modern slavery in Australia, this paper suggests that the issue has not been prioritised at scale across key sectors, including the settlement sector. As existing response structures are highly centralised at the federal level and community-based initiatives are discrete and poorly coordinated, there is a pressing need to expand current frameworks and enact multi-sectoral collaboration (George et al., 2017, 2018). In this study, while the labels of ‘slavery’, ‘trafficking’, ‘sexual servitude’, ‘forced labour’ and ‘forced marriage’ were not necessarily used in practice, settlement workers were aware of a continuum of controlling and exploitative experiences in their clients’ lives and, sometimes, in their own. Settlement staff possessed nuanced understandings of the nature of coercion and deception in the context of migration and cultural diversity. They grappled with the complex realities of client circumstances, which often involved overlapping issues, and struggled to navigate consent amidst systemic sociocultural factors that influenced client agency in subtle and at times obscure ways. Limited understandings and some misconstructions of modern slavery were evident, which may likely be contributing to low detection of exploitative practices. This paper advocates for the generation of initiatives that grow collective knowledge on modern slavery within the settlement sector, that are culturally sensitive and have a particular focus on migration. It also recommends further exploration of the understandings of settlement services and other key first responder groups to build on the findings of this study. While there is unprecedented legislative momentum in NSW to enhance responses to modern slavery, it is vital that such efforts are informed and directed by empirical research.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants and settlement organisations involved in the study. We also express our gratitude to the legal and policy professionals at Anti-Slavery Australia, in particular Grace Wong and Carolyn Liaw, who offered their time to review and validate the survey component of the study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Keren David

Michael Salter

References

Anti-Slavery Australia (ASA) (2012) Inquiry into slavery, slavery-like conditions and people trafficking: Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Report available at: http://www.antislavery.org.au/images/pdf/Publications/2012%20-%20Submission%20to%20Joint%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Foreign%20Affairs,%20Defence%20and%20Trade%20Inquiry%20into%20Slavery,%20Slavery-like%20conditions….pdf (accessed 27 January 2020).

Australian Government (2015) Guidelines for NGOs working with trafficked people: Third edition. Report available at: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/criminal-justice/files/guidelines-ngos-working-with-trafficked-people.pdf (accessed 24 January 2020).

Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (2012) Inquiry into slavery, slavery-like conditions and people trafficking: Australian Human Rights Commission submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Human Rights Sub-Committee. Report available at: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/20121005_slavery_0.pdf (accessed 24 January 2020).

Barker

(2018) Modern Slavery Bill 2018. Bills Digest 12(2018–2019): 1–24.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Burn

Simmons

Hollonds

, et al. (2012) Hidden exploitation: Women in forced labour, marriage and migration. Report available at: https://www.goodshep.org.au/media/2045/0556-good-shepherd-hidden-exploitation-report-final-online1.pdf (accessed 27 January 2020).

Christ

Burritt

(2018) Current perceptions on the problem of modern slavery in business. Business Strategy and Development 1(2): 103–114.

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) (2020) Human trafficking and slavery. Available at: https://www.cdpp.gov.au/crimes-we-prosecute/human-trafficking-and-slavery (accessed 23 November 2020).

Commonwealth of Australia (COA) (2014) National action plan to combat human trafficking and slavery 2015–19. Report available at: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/criminal-justice/files/trafficking-national-action-plan-combat-human-trafficking-slavery-2015-19.pdf (accessed 27 January 2020).

10.

Commonwealth of Australia (COA) (2017) Hidden in plain sight: An inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia. Report available at: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportjnt/024102/toc_pdf/HiddeninPlainSight.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf (accessed 27 Janurary 2020).

11.

Davy

(2016) Human trafficking and slavery in Australia: Pathways, tactics, and subtle elements of enslavement. Women & Criminal Justice 26(3): 180–198.

12.

Davy

(2017) Justice for victims of human trafficking in Australia? Issues associated with Australia’s criminal justice response to trafficking in persons. Contemporary Justice Review 20(1): 115–131.

13.

Flynn

Alston

Mason

(2014) Trafficking in women for sexual exploitation: Building Australian knowledge. International Social Work 57(1): 27–38.

14.

Gallagher

(2017) What’s wrong with the Global Slavery Index? Anti-Trafficking Review 8(2017): 90–112.

15.

George

McNaughton

Tsourtos

(2017) An interpretive analysis of Australia’s approach to human trafficking and its focus on criminal justice over public Health. Journal of Human Trafficking 3(2): 81–92.

16.

George

Tsourtos

McNaughton

(2018) ‘It’s just about the crime, not the victim’: Critical insights from Australian service providers working with people who have been trafficked. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 30(1): 1–18.

17.

Irwin

(2017) Police officer understandings of human trafficking and awareness of anti-trafficking measures. Policing: An International Journal 40(2): 291–305.

18.

Kotnik

Czymoniewicz-Klippel

Hoban

(2007) Human trafficking in Australia: The challenge of responding to suspicious activities. Australian Journal of Social Issues 42(3): 369–386.

19.

Landau

Marshall

(2018) Should Australia be embracing the modern slavery model of regulation? Federal Law Review 46(2): 313–339.

20.

Leishman

(2007) Human trafficking and sexual slavery: Australia’s response. Australian Feminist Law Journal 27(1): 193–205.

21.

Lyneham

Bricknell

(2018) When saying no is not an option: Forced marriage in Australia and New Zealand. Report available at: https://aic.gov.au/publications/rr/rr11 (accessed 15 October 2020).

22.

Lyneham

Richards

(2014) Human trafficking involving marriage and partner migration to Australia. Report available at: https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp124 (accessed 24 January 2020).

23.

Lyneham

Dowling

Bricknell

(2019) Estimating the dark figure of human trafficking and slavery victimisation in Australia. Report available at: https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/sb/sb16 (accessed 15 October 2020).

24.

Millbank

Phillips

Bohm

(2006) Australia’s settlement services for refugees and migrants. Report available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/settlement (accessed 24 January 2020).

25.

Mirza

(2018) Reframing agency in abusive contexts: Beyond ‘free choice’ and ‘open resistance’. Journal of Gender-Based Violence 2(1): 41–56.

26.

O’Brien

(2016) Human trafficking heroes problem in anti-trafficking awareness campaigns. Social & Legal Studies 25(2): 205–224.

27.

Parliament of Australia (2019) Modern Slavery Act 2018. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2018A00153 (accessed 23 November 2020).

28.

Parliament of New South Wales (Parliament of NSW) (2020) Modern Slavery Act 2018 and associated matters. Report available at: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2546 (accessed 23 November 2020).

29.

Putt

(2007) Human trafficking to Australia: A research challenge. Report available at: https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi338 (accessed 27 January 2020).

30.

Schloenhardt

Astill-Torchia

Jolly

(2012) Be careful what you pay for: Awareness raising on trafficking in persons. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 11(2): 415–435.

31.

Schloenhardt

Beirne

Corsbie

(2009) Trafficking in persons in Australia: Myths and realities. Global Crime 10(3): 224–247.

32.

Schloenhardt

Hunt-Walshe

(2012) The role of non-governmental organisations in Australia’s anti-trafficking in persons framework. University of Western Australia Law Review 36(1): 57–91.

33.

Schofield

Hepworth

Jones

, et al. (2011) Health and community services for trafficked women: An exploratory study of policy and practice. Australian Journal of Social Issues 46(4): 391–410.

34.

Simmons

O’Brien

David

, et al. (2013) Human trafficking and slavery offenders in Australia. Report available at: https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi464 (accessed 15 October 2020).

35.

Sowey

(2018) From an emic perspective: Exploring consent in forced marriage law. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 51(2): 258–274.

36.

United Nations (UN) (2013) Report of the special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences: Thematic report on challenges and lessons in combating contemporary forms of slavery. Report available at: http://lastradainternational.org/lsidocs/Report%20of%20the%20SR%20on%20contemporary%20forms%20of%20slavery%202013.pdf (accessed 23 January 2020).

37.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2004) United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the protocols thereto. Report available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/middleeastandnorthafrica/organised-crime/UNITED_NATIONS_CONVENTION_AGAINST_TRANSNATIONAL_ORGANIZED_CRIME_AND_THE_PROTOCOLS_THERETO.pdf (accessed 23 January 2020).

38.

Vidal

(2017) Developing innovative, best practice solutions to address forced marriage in Australia. Report available at: https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/Vidal_L_2016_Solutions_to_addressing_forced_marriage_in_Australia.pdf (accessed 17 March 2020).

39.

Zirnsak

Sinclair

Moore

, et al. (2017) Submission to the inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act: Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Sub-Committee on Human Rights. Report available at: http://fecca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Joint-Submission-into-Modern-Slavery-Act.pdf (accessed 15 October 2020).