In order to analyse the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons Act, 2011, the operations of the
principal offences were assessed against the Trafficking in Persons Protocol, Divisions 270 and
271 of Australia’s Criminal Code and academic literature. This was done in order to examine and
uncover any weaknesses in the 2011, Act, which would then determine whether this Act was in
fact an effective measure that was implemented to eradicate human trafficking. A comparison
between the 2011, Act, and the Protocol was made in order to examine if the Act was in
compliance with the Trafficking in Persons Protocol. The Act should be in compliance with the
Protocol because the Act is specifically designed to give effect to it which means that the
Trafficking in Persons Act must adopt certain provisions outlined in the Protocol. If the Act does
in fact comply with the Protocol, which is the most authoritative international instrument on
human trafficking, then the Act is effective. The academic literature employed was an article
entitled, “Trafficking in Persons,” by Jarrod Jolly which dealt with an explanation and a perfect
analysis of Australia’s Criminal Code. Reference was also made to the actual Criminal Code of
Australia with particular emphasis on Divisions 270 and 271. This was compared with our
Trafficking in Persons Act in order to justify that our Act would in fact be effective if it were to
be implemented by showing weakness in Australia’s Criminal Code. The comparisons are now
analysed below to illustrate how the 2011, Act is adequate.
Article 3(a) of the Trafficking in Persons Protocol provides an in-depth definition of human
trafficking. This definition is important because it provides an internationally agreed norm of
what human trafficking is, sets out elements of human trafficking that should be criminalized and
is broad and clear that it is not confused with other offences such as smuggling. Article 3 (a) of
the Protocol specifies the, “acts,” of trafficking in its definition as being, “the recruitment,
transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons.” However Australia’s Criminal Code,
Division 271 illustrated that the, “acts,” of trafficking is simply, “organisation and facilitation.”
Though it is likely to be construed as covering any of the acts of trafficking under the Protocol as
mentioned, it was recommended that they should amend the, “acts,” of trafficking to closely
reflect those specified in the Protocol because the definition needs to be clear.20 The importance
of legislations incorporating the specific definition of human trafficking set out in the Protocol
20
Jarrod Jolly, ‘Trafficking in Persons’ [2010] Sydney Law Review, 28
18