Communication No. 1036/2001 Submitted by: Bernadette Faure (represented by her father, Leonard Faure) Alleged victim: The author State party: Australia Date of adoption of Views: 31 October 2005 Dole programme amounted to a forced or compulsory labour, reasoning that the alleged violation arose by direct operation of legislation, rather than as a result of a decision maker’s discretion and therefore fell outside of its statutory mandate. HREOC observed, in addition, that “…reducing or cancelling unemployment assistance because a person does not want to participate in the Work for the Dole programme does not constitute forced or compulsory labour, as the nature of the punishment and the degree of involuntariness does not reach the threshold required to breach article 8 (3) (a) of the [Covenant].” Subject matter: Receipt of unemployment benefits conditioned upon performance of compulsory labour Procedural issues: Exhaustion of domestic remedies – Substantiation, for purposes of admissibility – Scope of the Covenant Articles of the Covenant: 2 and 8 Article of the Optional Protocol: 5, para. 2 (b) Finding: Violation (arts. 2, para. 3; and 8) 1. The author of the communication, initially dated 19 June 2001, is Bernadette Faure, an Australian and Maltese national, born 22 April 1980. She claims to be a victim of a violation by Australia of her rights under articles 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 (a)– (c), and 8, paragraph 3. She is represented by her father, Leonard Faure, who acts with her express authority. 2.4 On 9 July 2001, the author commenced the Work for Dole programme, finishing her initial employment placement on 7 October 2001. After starting a second employment placement on 24 October 2001, she did not attend the placement on 30 October and again on 5–6 November. On 22 November 2001, a rate reduction period was imposed on her unemployment benefit for her unexplained absence on 30 October (second “activity test” breach in two years).2 The facts as presented by the author 2.1 After leaving high school aged 16 in 1996, the author continuously drew unemployment benefits. On 7 July 1997, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Work for the Dole) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) entered into force. 2.5 On 6 December 2001, her unemployment benefit was entirely cancelled for her unexplained absence on 5–6 November 2001 (her third “activity test” breach in two years) and she left the Work for Dole programme. Prior to the cancellation, she was contacted and claimed that she had been too ill to attend the employment placement. She was unable to provide a medical certificate for her absence, claiming to have lost the original one provided by her doctor, and was unable to provide a copy from the doctor. The cancellation resulted in a two months non-payment period of her unemployment benefits. 2.2 On 3 November 2000, after having been referred to and attending an “Intensive Assistance” programme at IPA Personnel Ltd (a Governmentaccredited private employment agency), the author failed to comply with the terms of her “Preparing for Work Agreement” (first “activity test” breach in two years). As a result, on 13 November 2000, a rate reduction period was imposed on her unemployment benefit.1 2.6 On 10 December 2001, an administrative review officer affirmed the decision to cancel the author’s unemployment benefit. On 26 February 2002, her unemployment benefits were reinstated following a renewed application for payment of unemployment benefits. 2.3 Following completion of the “Intensive Assistance” programme, the author was referred on three occasions to an employer, Mission Australia, to undertake the Work for Dole programme, with an interview scheduled on each occasion. She did not attend any interview. In the meantime, on 12 June 2001, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) also declined to investigate a complaint lodged on her behalf that the Work for The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that she was required to perform forced or compulsory labour in violation of article 8, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, in 1 2 The State party explains that the reduction in payment for a first activity test breach in two years is 18 per cent of the person’s maximum basic rate of payment for 26 weeks. The State party explains that the reduction in payment for a second activity test breach in two years is 24 per cent of the person’s maximum basic rate of payment for 26 weeks. 68