# Australia - United States Department of State

- Coordinator on Global Anti-Corruption Nephew’s Travel to Malaysia and Australia Office of the SpokespersonCoordinator on Global Anti-Corruption Richard Nephew will travel to Malaysia and Australia from May 9-14. Throughout the trip, he will meet with a range of government officials, civil society organizations, and private sector representatives. He will discuss work underway in the fight against corruption and areas for further cooperation and collaboration on anti-corruption efforts.Follow @StateCGAC on Twitter to learn more.
- Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink’s Travel to Hawaii and Australia Office of the SpokespersonAssistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel J. Kritenbrink will travel to Honolulu, Hawaii, and Canberra, Australia May 2-8.While in Honolulu, Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink will attend the USINDOPACOM change of command ceremony as Admiral Samuel J. Paparo assumes command from Admiral John C. Aquilino.While in Canberra, Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink will meet with senior government officials and experts to deepen the U.S.-Australia alliance, discuss ongoing collaboration to address global challenges, and advance joint efforts to promote an Indo-Pacific region that is peaceful, prosperous, and respects the sovereign rights of all countries.
- Resettlement Diplomacy Network Senior Officials Meeting Office of the SpokespersonFrom April 29 to May 1, 2024, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) Julieta Valls Noyes convened the third Senior Officials Meeting of the Resettlement Diplomacy Network (RDN) in Washington, DC.  Under the chairship of the United States, senior government officials from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, and the United Kingdom, along with representatives of the European Commission, participated in the exchange.The meeting provided an opportunity for participating states to review the impact of the RDN’s work since its inaugural ministerial meeting in September 2023 and to assess priorities for continued collective action on refugee resettlement and complementary pathways that help strengthen the global protection system.Participants discussed the use of the Emergency Coordination Platform established within the RDN (also known as the “Red Phone” mechanism) to facilitate rapid collaboration on situations of shared concern, including continued focus on providing safety to Afghan refugees in need of protection.  In addition, participants reflected on lessons from previous emergency responses to large-scale displacement and discussed opportunities to work together to strengthen the global resettlement and complementary protection pathways system, including by strengthening existing emergency transit infrastructure, using innovative refugee resettlement referral mechanisms, and leveraging community-driven sponsorship models.  Finally, participants discussed the Safe Mobility initiative and further opportunities for coordination on infrastructure to support pathways to resettlement.The United States launched the RDN in September 2022.  Pathways International and the Migration Policy Institute support the U.S. chairship of the RDN as the RDN secretariat.
- Assistant Secretary Witkowsky and Ambassador-at-Large Rao Gupta’s Travel to Papua New Guinea and Australia Office of the SpokespersonAssistant Secretary of the State Department Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations Anne A. Witkowsky and U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Dr. Geeta Rao Gupta will travel jointly to Papua New Guinea and Australia from April 26 to May 10.In Papua New Guinea, Assistant Secretary Witkowsky and Ambassador-at-Large Rao Gupta will meet with government representatives, civil society and private sector stakeholders, and women-led organizations to discuss mutual priorities related to the U.S. Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability and opportunities to advance Women, Peace, and Security and address gender-based violence.In Australia, Assistant Secretary Witkowsky will lead a delegation composed of Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Dr. Rao Gupta and Deputy Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Aaron Keyak to attend sessions at the International Atrocity Prevention Working Group Spring Meeting. &nbsp;Ambassador Rao Gupta, joined by Assistant Secretary Witkowsky, will also lead U.S. participation in the second U.S.-Australia Bilateral Strategic Dialogue on Gender Equality.For more information, follow @StateCSO on X and Facebook and @StateGWI on X, Facebook, and LinkedIn or contact CSO at CSOPublicAffairs1@state.gov and S/GWI at StateGWI@state.gov.						Tags																					Australia																								Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations																								Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs																																Conflict Prevention																															Office of the Spokesperson																																Official International Travel																															Papua New Guinea																																Women&#039;s Issues
- ANZAC Day Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateOn behalf of the United States of America, I am honored to join in commemorating ANZAC Day this April 25, 2024, alongside Australia and New Zealand.Today, we pay homage to the valor and sacrifice of the ANZAC forces who epitomized courage during the Gallipoli Campaign. We reflect, too, on the debt of gratitude we all owe our servicepeople. Their unwavering dedication to defending freedom and democracy serves as an enduring testament to the ideals we hold dear.In recognizing the sacrifices of the past and the steadfast commitment of our service members, we reaffirm the unbreakable bonds of friendship and partnership between our nations. From the trenches of World War I to the present-day challenges, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand have stood shoulder to shoulder in defense of shared values and principles.On this ANZAC Day, let us honor the legacy of our fallen heroes by rededicating ourselves to the pursuit of peace and prosperity.
- Digital Press Briefing with Ambassador Bonnie Denise Jenkins, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ambassador Bonnie Denise Jenkins, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International SecurityAsia Pacific Media HubMODERATOR:  Greetings from the U.S. Department of State’s Asia Pacific Media Hub.  I would like to welcome journalists to today’s on-the-record briefing with Ambassador Bonnie Denise Jenkins, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.  Under Secretary Jenkins will provide an update on the Australia-UK-U.S., or AUKUS, security partnership, including recent announcements, its role in regional security, opportunities for innovation, and our commitments to advancing the initiative.And with that, let’s get started.  Under Secretary Jenkins, thank you so much for being with us today.  I’ll turn it over to you for your opening remarks.UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Great, thank you so much for inviting me.  It’s really a great opportunity to speak about AUKUS and the great work that we’re trying to – as we are working to implement this amazing initiative.So U.S., Australia, and UK are longstanding allies and partners committed to working together to actualize AUKUS and deepen our partnership.  These new authorities will allow for unparalleled levels of security cooperation between our governments and industries.  An endeavor of this size and scale will have challenges, but we will work trilaterally to overcome them together.  AUKUS is an example of demonstrating our firm commitment to our international partners and is a key line of effort in our Indo-Pacific strategies.The initiative remains committed to the highest nuclear nonproliferation standard, and AUKUS maintains strong bilateral and multilateral support in all three countries.  We are committed to getting this done right.  We understand the importance of enhancing security standards to protect our sensitive technology as you break new frontiers on developing emerging technologies together.  And we collectively want to have a robust consultation with industry that’s important to complete before exemptions can take effect to maximize its potential and use.We look forward to robust engagement in the weeks ahead with industry stakeholders after the trilateral partners have a chance to publish draft regulations for collaboration.  We see public input as vital and we will publish draft regulations for the exemptions soon.So with that, I’ll turn it back over and I am open and ready for questions.MODERATOR:  Thank you so much, Under Secretary.  We will now turn to the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  Our first question came in in advance from Kym Bergmann at the Asia Pacific Defence Reporter in Canberra, Australia.  Kym asks:  “I&#8217;m after a bit more fidelity on the U.S. $3 billion that Australia will transfer to the U.S. submarine industrial base.  Can you indicate how that figure was arrived at?”UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Great, thank you for that question.  So the AUKUS security partnership collectively boosts each partner’s defense industrial bases and it strengthens submarine supply chains.  So the 3 billion in U.S.-dollar Australian contribution will uplift the U.S. submarine industrial base and provide enduring benefits to U.S. Virginia-class submarine construction and maintenance efforts.  So the contribution by Australia to the U.S. submarine industrial base will build on existing and planned U.S. efforts that will improve industrial base capability, will increase capacity, will – it’ll grow workforce and advance new manufacturing technologies.So the important Australian contribution will directly support the necessary growth for our Virginia-class submarine production that will meet U.S. national needs as well as AUKUS requirements.  I hope that answers the question.MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question goes to Jinmyung Kim at the Chosun Ilbo in Seoul, Republic of Korea, who asks:  “About two weeks ago the AUKUS defense ministers said they would consider bringing Japan into Pillar II.  Also, the AUKUS partners are reportedly considering to add some more partners to Pillar II, including the ROK, Canada, and New Zealand.  What are the most important elements to be considered?  Where are we in terms of the expansion of AUKUS?”UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Great, thanks for that question.  I know there’s a lot of interest in Pillar II of AUKUS.  And I just want to make a few points early on, because I know there&#8217;s a lot of interest.  So since the beginning of AUKUS, the President and trilateral leaders have been very clear in our intent to engage others in Pillar II advanced capability projects as we progress.So to be very clear about this, we are not planning to expand cooperation of Pillar I, of course, which is focused on assisting Australia with the acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines.  But the parties have developed principles and models for additional partner engagement in Pillar II projects.  And we will undertake consultations this year with potential partners regarding areas where they can contribute to and benefit from the work that we&#8217;re doing in Pillar II.So we announced that Japan will be the first to be consulted, and we recognize Japan&#8217;s strength and the close bilateral defense partnerships with AUKUS countries, AUKUS partners, our continuing cooperation with Japan, and Pillar II advanced capability projects.  But we don’t have a timeline for Japan or any other country with which we are consulting about additional partnerships.  It is critical that we conduct a very deliberate process.  So these are discussions that we&#8217;re having, we&#8217;re going to be having with countries based on things that we think are important in terms of what additional partners can bring.So we have developed principles and models for additional partner engagement.  We&#8217;ve identified collaboration opportunities and we will take into account factors such as technological Innovation, financing, industrial capacity, ability to adequately protect sensitive data and information, and impact on promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.So those are some of the things I just wanted to note early on and just to re-emphasize that having partners in Pillar II is always something that we – that was considered by the leaders of all three countries – not for Pillar I but for Pillar II – and we are – we have some criteria that we&#8217;re looking at and we will be engaging countries.  We don’t have a timeframe in which we’re going to do it necessarily, but we hope to be able to make some advancements this year.  So I hope that’s helpful.MODERATOR:  Great.  Our next question comes to us via the Q&amp;A tab from Gordon Arthur at Defense News, who&#8217;s based in Christchurch, New Zealand.  Gordon asks:  “Apart from nuclear-powered submarines, can you provide some concrete examples of AUKUS Pillar II projects that are actually making concrete progress?”UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Well, we are in – I mean, one of the things I want to highlight is we have a number of trilateral groups that are looking at all of the different technologies.  But I think most of you know the technologies include cyber and undersea and electronic warfare and artificial intelligence and quantum computing.  And we&#8217;re looking at all of those, and we have – we&#8217;ve done a – at a meeting that we had in April last year, we did some work on some UAVs and I think we did – there was another event that we did in Australia that we can get more information to you on.  And so we are actually having conversations and working together on some of these demonstrations that we can show that we are actually making some progress.I should also note, of course, that a lot of this is in development when you talk about emerging technologies, as we have three countries working together.  One of the things we do want to do is find out where we have similarities, where there’s gaps in what we&#8217;re trying to do.So these are things that we&#8217;re working on.  I should also point out that regarding Pillar II and even Pillar I for that matter, part of it’s going to be education; part of it&#8217;s going to be training individuals from all three countries going to different schools.  We&#8217;ve already started having conversations amongst universities of the three countries.  We&#8217;ve been able to train some of submarine individuals from Australia in U.S. schools.So there&#8217;s a lot that&#8217;s happening in all of AUKUS in terms of the steps we&#8217;re making, in terms of implementing both Pillar I and Pillar II.MODERATOR:  Okay, thank you.  Our next question goes to Paul Starick of The Advertiser in Adelaide, Australia.  Paul asked:  “Why is it in the United States’ strategic and industrial interest to have AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines built in Adelaide?  Is it because of capacity issues in the U.S. shipyards?  And what benefits will Adelaide nuclear-powered submarines bring to this industrial base?”UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Thanks for that question.  And in terms of the location, that really is a – where the submarines are is really built on sovereign decisions that remain in Australia.  So I would have to refer that specific question to the Australian Government because that&#8217;s really a decision that was made by them in terms of where the best location would be for that.MODERATOR:  Okay, our next question goes to Christine Rovoi of the Pacific Media Network based in Auckland, New Zealand.  Christine asks:  “Pacific leaders have warned against AUKUS and regional partners Australia and New Zealand joining AUKUS because the region says it wants a nuclear-free Pacific, and this trilateral agreement between Australia, the UK, and the U.S. goes against the Blue Pacific narrative.  AUKUS has not been discussed in the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting since it was signed in 2021.  Why hasn&#8217;t the U.S. fronted the Pacific leaders about AUKUS?  How can Washington – what can Washington do to quell the fears from the Pacific?”UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Yes, we – thanks for the question.  And we – ever since we launched the AUKUS, we&#8217;ve been having conversations with many countries about the goal of AUKUS, what AUKUS is, what we&#8217;re trying to do with AUKUS.  I know I can say that I&#8217;ve had many conversations personally with a number of countries in the region, outside the region, on AUKUS and what the goal of AUKUS is.So we want to keep doing that.  We want to keep having these conversations.  But I can certainly say that we have been – and not just the U.S. but also Australia has also been doing a lot of engagements within the region to explain what AUKUS is: the goals, the rationale, what we hope to achieve, and just regular updates on AUKUS.We’ve also done it in terms of engagements with – in Pillar I and the IAEA.  Director General Grossi has come out with at least two reports on AUKUS and the relationships and the good conversations that he&#8217;s having with the trilateral partners.  So there’s been a lot of engagement on AUKUS and we are very open and we want to be very transparent about the goals of AUKUS for both Pillar I and Pillar II, and hopefully, If folks aren&#8217;t really seeing that, they will see that in the near future because we recognize the importance of transparency and making sure we get the correct information out there about what we&#8217;re trying to accomplish with this very important initiative.MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question goes to Rosie Lewis from The Australian based in Canberra, who asks:  “There&#8217;s been recent congressional reports suggesting the Virginia-class submarine production has been delayed by several years.  What does that mean for delivering Virginias to Australia in the early 2030s?  Is that still feasible?  Is there concern in Washington that giving those subs to Australia will undermine American security?”UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  What I can say is we are very – still very committed to the implementation of AUKUS to make sure that we are able to provide Australia with the nuclear-powered submarines.  That has not wavered.  Of course there&#8217;s been, as usual, concerns raised on the Hill about different aspects of AUKUS, though I can say that there&#8217;s strong bilateral bipartisan support for AUKUS overall, which is really good.  I mean, I testified in Congress at the House Foreign Affairs Committee in February and when there was a strong takeaway by me in terms of the bipartisan support.So what I can certainly say is that we remain committed to AUKUS.  We remain committed to providing a nuclear-powered submarine to AUKUS.  We recognize that there’s things that we have to address here in the United States domestically in terms of concerns raised by the Hill, but we are very committed to fulfilling our obligations under the AUKUS agreement.MODERATOR:  Next we have a question from the live queue.  We have Brandon How at InnovationAus in Canberra.  Brandon, you should be able to unmute yourself now.QUESTION:  Thanks very much for giving me time for the question, and thanks very much for taking time to update us on AUKUS.  I just wanted to follow up on the questions about additional partners for AUKUS Pillar II.  I was just wondering, will the United States be – in order to additional partners to participate, will there need to be additional exemptions under the export administrations regulation, or ITAR, and do you expect similar reforms or exemptions would need to be made in Australia and the UK to enable additional AUKUS Pillar II partners?  Thanks.UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Thanks for the question.  Right now we are working very closely with the UK and Australia.  All three countries are working very closely to ensure that we all have comparable export control regulations that will help to ensure the security of information and technology that will be shared amongst all three countries.  I can say that it&#8217;s been a lot of hard work that&#8217;s gone into this so far.  Ever since we had our NDAA passed late last year in the U.S., both Australia and the UK have been working very hard in terms of their own legislation that has to be adapted for AUKUS.  And we are very close to that point right now.  So that is going very well and we&#8217;re very happy with that process.  And we feel – we think that we&#8217;ll be able to get everything done in a – the next timeframe that is required in the next 120 days.As for other partners, it’s hard; I can&#8217;t predict right now and I don&#8217;t want to get ahead of the process in terms of what might be required for other partners.  Of course this will be one of the things that will be looked at as we consider new partners, part of it in addition to things that I had listed early on that we’ll have to look at, issues like ITAR and what would need to happen to have successful new partners join AUKUS.So what I can say is that it’s something that we will certainly be looking at, but I don’t have anything that I can really say at this point in terms of that because I don’t want to get ahead of the process.MODERATOR:  Okay, we have another live question from Lewis Jackson with Reuters.  Lewis, you should be able to unmute yourself now.QUESTION:  Oh, fantastic.  Thanks.  So a couple of quick ones.  So first, there&#8217;s been a lot of concerns raised in the U.S., in Australia, even in Japan about sort of the level of their sophistication when it comes to cyber security and how that could be a barrier to being involved in Pillar II.  I mean, is this something you&#8217;re thinking about?  Is this something being discussed?  Do you expect it to be a topic of discussion when those talks begin later this year?And then just to, I suppose, reiterate a point you made just earlier, but do you see any chance that there could be a further delay after this 120-day timeline regarding the State Department trade exemptions?UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Great, thanks for the question.  Kind of what I was saying before, when we look at additional partners and which partners may come on board, we will be looking at a total panoply of issues.  It includes the things that I had already mentioned in terms of what we’re going to be looking at with specific countries and what they can bring to the table, what gaps they can fill, what are their areas of expertise.  But we’ve also been looking at what I said about how does it – what do we need to do in terms of potential exemptions, levels of sophistication.  These are all like – as you had said, these are all things we’re going to be looking at.  And so as I said, it’s going to be an issue that all three countries will be discussing.  We’ll be discussing that with the potential country that can come on board.  So these are all things that we’ll look at, and thanks for that because that is one of the things we will be looking at as well.As far as the next 120 days, what I can say is, I mean, it’s hard to put in words how much we’ve gotten done.  I mean, a process that normally takes six to 12 months we’ve been able to get done – get a lot done in the first 120 days.  And that includes new legislation in the U.S., new legislation in the UK, new legislation in Australia.  There were weekly meetings.  There were –flying between London and Canberra and D.C.  There’s been working groups.  It’s been a lot of work and we’ve been able to get a lot done, and I do appreciate all that the UK and Australia have done in terms of actually putting forth legislation and getting – and working toward to get the legislation approved and implemented as we’re doing in the U.S.So it’s hard to explain how much work has happened, but the fact that we were able to get so much done in the first 120 days and we’re hoping to get something out to our industries so that they can look at that, because we need to have industry input on any changes of legislation, because if it’s going to be successful we need to hear from them – that’s the next step.  But I don’t want to say I guarantee, but I can say we feel pretty good based on what we’ve accomplished already that we can probably make the next 120 days.MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question comes from Chan Thul Prak at Kiripost in Cambodia, who asks:  “How do you respond to past remarks by Cambodian leaders that AUKUS is a threat to the region, that it is a dangerous arms race?  This has been a concern by Cambodia, which is a close ally with China.  Cambodia objected to the coming of nuclear-powered submarines to the region.”  Over.UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Well, a couple things.  As we’ve said several times, we are focused on safety and freedom of navigation and those things in the Indo-Pacific, and those are a fundamental reason why we are engaged on these issues and doing this trilateral.  As I said, one of the things we want to do is be very transparent and talking with countries in the region to hear their concerns, to be – and for us – and I say here again I thank Australia because they’ve been very good at this – explaining to countries in the region about why we’re doing this.  And it&#8217;s not at all to create a problem.  We’re trying to help to – help the safety and security of the region and countries, and that Australia is not going to develop a nuclear weapon; as I said, they’re going to have a nuclear-powered submarine, which is allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.So we’re not creating new nuclear weapons.  We’re not creating new nuclear states by doing this.  And so I just want to just be – just want to make that very clear, and this is something that we’re going to keep talking to countries in the region because we know there’s also some incorrect information out there about the purpose of AUKUS and what we’re trying to do.  And it’s very important that countries understand that this is not to create a race, to create any kind of arms races.  As I said, nuclear-powered submarines are allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and Australia is not going to become a nuclear weapons state and they’re not going to be able to use the nuclear-powered submarines to develop a nuclear weapon either because if they tried to do that, the whole submarine would not work anymore.So these are things that we want to make very clear to countries.  And lastly, I just want to highlight, as I said earlier, the great work that we’re doing with the International Atomic Energy Agency to make sure that we are doing everything to have the highest nonproliferation standards in what we’re trying to do.MODERATOR:  Okay, next we have questions from Dileepa Fonseka at BusinessDesk in New Zealand, who asks:  “Is AUKUS Pillar II considered to be a military alliance?  And what benefits will AUKUS Pillar II potentially deliver members beyond what they might already get from Five Eyes membership?”UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Well, I think the thing about it is these are emerging technologies in Pillar II.  I mean, these are things that are developing, so that it’s a very exciting prospect to think the three countries and other countries who might be involved will be developing new technologies together that could be interoperable and connected.  And so it’s not only having the three countries who can use their knowledge and experience from the military and also from academia and from industry, who are all going to be part of this, working together to develop new technologies that can be interoperable.And so of course there’s the military side of it, but there’s also academia.  As I said, we’re going to be – we have universities amongst the three countries who are already starting to work together.  We’re talking to our young people about it because AUKUS is going to be a 70-, 80-year process, so the next two generations working on it.  So it’s really going to be government, industry, academia, military all working together on these new technologies.So yeah, you can see part of it’s military, but part of it is also a lot more in terms of what we’re going to be able to do in terms of students who are in STEM who can get involved in this kind of work.  So, and then of course we can bring in more countries that can also benefit from that.  They can also share in that and they can also be part of this interoperability that we have.  And so it will build on whatever existing relationships that are out there amongst the countries who are part of it.MODERATOR:  Okay, I think we have time for one more question.  We have Colin Clark from Breaking Defense in Sydney, Australia, in the live queue.  Colin, you should be able to unmute yourself now.QUESTION:  Hopefully that worked.MODERATOR:  We can hear you.UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Yes.QUESTION:  Excellent.  So there was three point something billion in the House supplemental that just passed for submarine industrial base.  And my question is:  Is this effectively moving the Australian money into U.S. coffers, or is this new money for the U.S. submarine industrial base?UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Yeah, I believe – and I will check, but I believe that’s new money.  I don’t – I think that’s new money that’s going into the industrial base.  I can check on that and get back to you, but I think it’s new money.  That’s my understanding.MODERATOR:  All right, thank you.  And now, Under Secretary Jenkins, if you have any closing remarks, I’ll turn it back to you.UNDER SECRETARY JENKINS:  Well, first of all, just thank you for hosting this.  Thank you for everyone who’s asking questions or just listening.  I know a bulk of the questions at this point are really about new partners, which is actually a very exciting part of where we are now.I guess there’s just a couple points.  One is that – I said this already – all the work that’s already gone into this, I mean, it’s hard to say – as I said already, to say in here how much has been done by all three countries.  And that’s one of the innovative things about AUKUS, is that we have been able to move in the direction that over 80 percent of technology and everything that we can now share amongst all three countries that we – much more than we could before, once everything is done.  And that’s exciting in terms of what we’re able to do.I think we still have to, of course, do a few more things, but I think we’re feeling pretty good that we’ll be able to get this done in the 240 days, which, as I said, is so much faster than we could normally do anything like this, and the amount of openness in terms of technology that we have between the three countries is important.Second of all, we want to continue to be transparent.  We want to continue to talk to countries about this.  I know there’s still concerns from different aspects of AUKUS that people have and countries have.  But the best way to get through some of that is to have these kind of conversations and to continue to talk through it and answer questions about it and to be as transparent as we can be, both in this kind of forum but also in forums like the International Atomic Energy Agency, where we are working very closely with them.So just thank you very much for taking part in this, and that we look forward to having more conversations with anyone who wants to know more about what AUKUS is doing and where we’re heading in the future.  So thank you.MODERATOR:  Thank you so much, Under Secretary Jenkins.  That brings us to the end of our time today.  I’m sorry we couldn’t get to all questions.  Thank you so much to everyone who asked questions, and huge thanks to Under Secretary Jenkins for joining us.We will provide a transcript of this briefing to participating journalists as soon as it is available.  We’d also love to hear your feedback.  You can contact us at any time at AsiaPacMedia@state.gov.  Thanks again for your participation, and we hope you can join us for another briefing soon.  Take care.
- Creative Writers Imagine Solutions to Climate Challenges Aubrey R. Paris, Ph.D., Ilinca Drondoe, and Laura GambleOffice of Global Women&#8217;s IssuesThe urgency of the climate crisis demands a collective response that is reflective of different backgrounds and areas of expertise, and it requires elevating voices and perspectives that may not usually be heard. This includes members of the creative industries, who not only play a role in imagining innovative solutions, but also in developing narratives that enhance our understanding of climate-related challenges and opportunities. On this World Creativity and Innovation Day, we are highlighting an international collective of writers that aims to do just that.Through its Innovation Station initiative, the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI) collaborated with Syllble, an organization empowering global cohorts of speculative fiction writers, to form the “One Humanity Writing Collective.” Since 2021, One Humanity has asked women and non-binary creative writers to imagine futuristic worlds impacted by — and devising solutions to — pressing climate challenges, ranging from drought to floods to wildfires. According to Paulinette J. Quirindongo, an author from Puerto Rico, the collective’s work makes the climate crisis feel more human. She explained that “words can be used to transform minds ... Words are power.&#8221;Crafting Futuristic WorldsOne Humanity connects writers from diverse U.S. and international locations, particularly locations that may face similar climate challenges, to craft their futuristic worlds. The collective’s writers have hailed from California, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Puerto Rico, as well as Australia, Brazil, Guatemala, and New Zealand. Their collaborative writing — an exercise in cultural diplomacy — has demonstrated the value in having conversations about and theorizing solutions to climate and environmental challenges that transcend borders.For Ligia Anjos, a designer from Brazil, the project allowed her to play an active role in changing the narrative around climate action. “When I see some climate solutions , I think, ‘this will not work in Latin America.’” She emphasized that the collective’s diversity “helped us to learn ... not only about writing, but about the world,” allowing participants to co-create a vision for a more equitable future.  A few authors from the One Humanity Writing Collective (left to right): Ligia Anjos, C.B. Calsing, Elyse Hauser, Paulinette J. Quirindongo, and Caylee Tierney. (Courtesy Photos)To inform the writing process, S/GWI introduced One Humanity writers to women subject matter experts from the Innovation Station network to share their work on climate science and action. Each month, the authors met virtually for a workshop on an environmental issue that would provide inspiration for the next chapter of their story.“One writer  volunteer to write a story on that issue,” shared Elyse Hauser, a Seattle-area author. “Then we would meet again to talk about their draft.” She added that their writing process was strengthened by open discussions about how climate change affects each author’s community.“Some of us are making our own main character that reflects our personal knowledge,” Hauser mentioned, noting that she contributed a personally inspired chapter written from the perspective of the daughter of refugees. Similarly, Quirindongo created a character representative of Puerto Rico’s native Taino culture, bringing her unique ancestry into the collective’s stories.Including Marginalized VoicesCelebrating characters from underrepresented communities and incorporating culturally significant themes were important goals of the writers. Caylee Tierney, an Australian author, emphasized that “marginalized voices are some of the more resilient ones in climate change discussions. Women and non-binary people are often used to the feeling of not being heard ... and if you can gather together more people, then you can have a richer understanding.” Participating in the collective has inspired Tierney to “channel activism through writing,” and as she pursues a career in creative writing, she emphasized her desire to create similarly collaborative, motivating spaces.Projects like One Humanity enable women and non-binary individuals to be a mouthpiece for climate storytelling, an important aspect of facilitating their climate leadership, as emphasized in the U.S. Strategy to Respond to the Effects of Climate Change on Women.When asked about the experience of writing across borders of identity and geography, the authors underscored the importance of listening carefully to one another. Writer C.B. Calsing shared her impression that “the most challenging part  setting aside the assumption about how you think things are elsewhere.” She believes it is important to feature women and non-binary authors because of the need for balance and representation in all spaces, ranging from decision-making bodies to written anthologies. Learning about each other increases cultural literacy and creates stories featuring inclusive solutions.At SYLLBLECON 2023, Syllble’s annual virtual convention for speculative fiction writers, the One Humanity Writing Collective joined other creative writers in pitching  their futuristic world to Hollywood judges. Those judges crowned One Humanity the winner of the World of the Year Award  based on “visionary potential, immersive storytelling, cultural significance, and overall market appeal.”Their project explores a world set in 2060 and follows an autonomous and self-aware ship that sails across the world, assisting climate refugees and navigating climate change impacts. Concerns like ocean acidification and shoreline erosion feature prominently in the collective’s stories, but so do possible solutions, however futuristic they may seem. “When you go into a fictional world,” Hauser shared, “you really can explore more systemic approaches to change or dig deeper into the systemic nature of the issues that we face.”Life-changing ExperienceA resounding theme echoes through the wisdom of these five gifted writers: hope. Hope illuminates their voices and work, bridging divides and forging connections; hope brightens our world through learning, collaboration, and unity; and hope creates a vision for our planet, as the stories penned today ignite the solutions of tomorrow.For Anjos, participating in One Humanity has been a life-changing experience allowing her to connect her technology skills with her passion for storytelling. In her words, “we are what we listen to; we are what we watch. When we create, we open doors for women to share their opinions, to build the future. We are able to make something different.”Aubrey R. Paris, Ph.D., is the Senior Policy Advisor for Gender, Climate Change, and Innovation in the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI), where she leads the Innovation Station initiative. Ilinca Drondoe and Laura Gamble are VSFS interns with the Innovation Station.
- Continued Progress on AUKUS Defense Trade Integration HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Continued Progress on AUKUS Defense Trade Integration				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Continued Progress on AUKUS Defense Trade Integration																																		Media Note																														April 19, 2024																																							AUKUS partners are making significant strides toward creating an innovative ecosystem that supports our shared interests and deepens our defense and security cooperation. Trilateral partners are increasing engagement with industry, including through forums like the Sea-Air-Space global maritime exposition, individual consultations, and more. Yesterday, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) released an “interim final rule significantly reducing licensing requirements for Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) to foster defense trade and technological innovation.” The partners welcomed the passage of the FY24 U.S National Defense Authorization Act, and legislation passed in the Australian and UK parliaments. All three AUKUS partners remain committed to implementation of novel trade critical to the success of AUKUS.Exemptions in our export control systems, within a framework of shared standards with Australia and the UK, are key to harnessing and maximizing the innovative power residing in our defense industrial bases. Industry, research communities, and academic institutions should take full advantage of this innovation spurring ecosystem. All three nations are committed to working with our private sectors and research communities – those who will use these exemptions – to ensure the exemptions, taken together, support the goals of all three governments and our shared interests. We look forward to robust engagement and consultation with stakeholders soon, after trilateral partners publish their reciprocal arrangements for public comment.The strength of the AUKUS partnership is rooted in the strength of our historic ties. We applaud the significant progress made to date on defense trade cooperation across our respective countries in such a short time. We fully expect to finalize the new trade exemptions – based on stakeholder input – over the course of the next 120 days.						Tags																					Australia																								Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs																								Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																																														Economic Prosperity and Trade Policy																															Office of the Spokesperson																								United Kingdom
- Australia HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Australia				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Australia																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																											c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Indigenous Peoples																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Australia during the year.There were no reports of significant human rights abuses.The government took credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The law prohibited such practices, and the government generally respected these provisions.  There were occasional claims police and prison officials mistreated suspects in custody.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						There were reports of harsh conditions at some prisons in rural areas that also held juveniles.Administration:  Authorities investigated allegations of poor conditions and documented the results of such investigations in a publicly accessible manner.In June the Human Rights Commission released a report finding serious and persistent human rights concerns in the Department of Home Affairs’ use of hotels as alternative places of detention within the country’s immigration detention system, citing negative effects on detainees’ physical and mental health.Independent Monitoring:  The government permitted visits by independent human rights observers.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention, and the government generally observed these prohibitions.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						Police officers could seek an arrest warrant from a magistrate when a suspect could not be located or failed to appear.  They also could arrest a person without a warrant with reasonable grounds to believe the person committed an offense.  The law required police to inform arrested persons immediately of their legal rights and the grounds for their arrest and required an audience before a magistrate for a bail hearing at the next court session.  The maximum investigation period police could hold and question a person without charge was 24 hours, unless extended by court order for up to an additional 24 hours or as noted below.Under limited circumstances in terrorism cases, some federal, state, or territorial laws permitted police to hold individuals in preventive detention without charge or questioning for up to 14 days.  These laws contained procedural safeguards, including protection for lawyer-client communications.Bail generally was available to persons facing criminal charges unless authorities considered the person a flight risk or the charges carried a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or more.  Authorities granted attorneys and families prompt access to detainees.  Government-provided attorneys were available to provide legal advice to and represent detainees who could not afford counsel.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The law provided for an independent judiciary, and the government respected judicial independence and impartiality.																Trial Procedures						The law provided for the right to a fair and timely public trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.g. Property Seizure and RestitutionLaws and mechanisms were in place for the resolution of Holocaust-era restitution claims, including by foreign citizens.  The country was a signatory of the Terezin Declaration.  Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were not aware of any recent restitution cases.  The Department of State’s Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act Report to Congress, released publicly in July 2020, can be found on the Department’s website:   https://www.state.gov/reports/just-act-report-to-congress/.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The law prohibited such actions, and there were no reports the government failed to respect these prohibitions.  Police had authority to enter premises without a warrant in emergency circumstances.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										Although the constitution did not explicitly provide for freedom of speech, including for members of the press and other media, the High Court held that the constitution implied a limited right to freedom of political expression, and the government generally respected this right.  An independent media, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to promote freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media.Freedom of Expression:  In October Queensland’s parliament passed laws against publicly displaying hate symbols, with exceptions for artistic, educational, religious, and historical reasons.																Internet Freedom						The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										Although the freedom of peaceful assembly and association were not codified in federal law, the government generally respected these rights.Freedom of Peaceful Assembly:  Several states passed laws on disruptive protests, increasing fines and jail times.  Victoria expanded police powers to search containers, bags, and vehicles for prohibited items in restricted areas.																																				c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these related rights.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.  UNHCR and others noted concerns, including regarding access to durable solutions.Access to Asylum:  The law provided for granting asylum or refugee status.  The government maintained a humanitarian refugee program that included several types of visas available to refugees and other humanitarian entrants for resettlement in the country.  The Department of Home Affairs oversaw refugee resettlement via the Refugee and Humanitarian Program, which distinguished between “offshore” and “onshore” applications.  Individuals residing offshore (outside the country) could apply for a humanitarian visa if they were subject to persecution in their home country; met the “compelling reasons” criterion; and satisfied health, character, and national security requirements.  Individuals who arrived in the country legally and later sought protection could apply for a Temporary Protection visa or a Permanent Protection visa.Persons who sought to enter the country without proper authorization were classified as illegal migrants and subjected to detention in the country or, for unauthorized maritime arrivals, in a third country for offshore processing.  Individuals who arrived illegally were permitted to apply for a Temporary Protection visa or a Safe Haven Enterprise visa at the discretion and invitation of the responsible government minister.  In February the government announced that refugees holding temporary visas would be eligible for a permanent Resolution of Status visa.  The government stated this provided a pathway for permanent protection for up to 20,000 individuals.UNHCR identified and referred some applicants who were residing offshore to the Department of Home Affairs to be considered under the offshore component of the humanitarian program.  While the law contained family reunification provisions, such requests from unauthorized maritime arrivals were given the lowest visa processing priority.The law allowed the home affairs minister to designate and enter into an agreement with a third country as a regional processing country for migrants attempting to enter the country as unauthorized maritime arrivals.  By law any unauthorized maritime arrival entering the country’s waters was liable for transfer to a designated regional processing country for processing of their protection claims and resettlement.Centers for regional processing in Papua New Guinea and Nauru (based on agreements from 2012 and 2013) were closed in 2017 and 2019, respectively.  In July authorities removed the last refugee in Nauru to Australia.  The government also moved all detainees from the Christmas Island detention center to the mainland, although the center remained open.  Resettlement of unauthorized maritime arrivals progressed through additional arrangements with the United States and New Zealand.Durable Solutions:  The government accepted refugees for resettlement from third countries and funded refugee resettlement services.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution and law provided citizens the ability to choose their government through free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.  Voting was mandatory.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections:  Elections in the country, including the most recent national elections in 2022, were reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and the government generally implemented these laws effectively.  There were isolated reports of government corruption during the year.Corruption:  All states and territories had anti-corruption bodies that investigated alleged government corruption, and every state and territory appointed an ombudsman who investigated and made recommendations in response to complaints regarding government decisions.  The government also appointed one commonwealth (federal) ombudsman, as laws differed between states.  The National Anti-Corruption Commission commenced operations in July; it was an independent agency of the federal government charged with detecting, investigating, and reporting on corruption in the government.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings.  Government officials often were cooperative and responsive to the views of these groups.Government Human Rights Bodies:  The Human Rights Commission, an organization established by parliament, investigated complaints of discrimination or breaches of human rights under the federal laws that implemented the country’s human rights treaty obligations; it was considered independent and effective.  The commission reported to parliament through the attorney general.  Media and NGOs deemed its reports accurate and reported them widely.  Parliament had a Joint Committee on Human Rights, and federal law required that a statement of compatibility with international human rights obligations accompany each new bill.  Human rights commissions operated at the state and territory level.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  The law criminalized rape of women and men, including spousal rape, and the government enforced the law effectively.  The laws of individual states and territories provided the penalties for rape.  Maximum penalties ranged from 12 years to life imprisonment, depending on the jurisdiction and aggravating factors.The law prohibited gender-based violence, including domestic abuse, and the government enforced the law.  The laws of individual states and territories provided the penalties for domestic violence.  Federal, state, and territorial government programs provided support for survivors, including funding for numerous women’s shelters.  Police received training in responding to domestic violence.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment:  The law prohibited sexual harassment, and the government effectively enforced it.  In a November 2022 report based on its survey, the Human Rights Commission noted that “sexual harassment continues to be an unacceptably common feature of Australian workplaces.”  Complaints of sexual harassment could lead to criminal proceedings or disciplinary action against the defendant and compensation claims by the plaintiff.  The Human Rights Commission received complaints of sexual harassment and sex discrimination.  The Australian Bureau of Statistics in August released a report finding that more than one-third of young women in the country had experienced violence and harassment.Discrimination:  The law provided the same legal status and rights for women and men, including under laws related to family, religion, personal status, labor, property, nationality, and inheritance, as well as employment, credit, pay, owning or managing businesses, education, and housing.  The government enforced the law effectively.Employment discrimination against women occurred; according to the government’s Workplace Gender Equality Agency, the full-time gender pay gap was 13 percent.Reproductive Rights:  There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.State and territorial governments provided comprehensive sex education and sexual health and family planning services.  Women had access to contraception and skilled medical care, including attendance by skilled health-care workers during pregnancy and childbirth.  Indigenous persons in isolated communities had more difficulty accessing such services.  Cultural factors and language barriers also inhibited use of sexual health and family planning services by Indigenous persons.  Rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy among the Indigenous population were higher than among the general population.Government at national, state, and territory levels provided access to sexual and reproductive health services for survivors of sexual violence, including emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										It was unlawful to discriminate against a person because of race, color, descent, national origin or ethnic origin, or immigrant status.  The law protected individuals from racial discrimination in many areas of public life, including employment, education, getting or using services, renting or buying a dwelling, and accessing public places.  The law also made racial hatred unlawful.  The government effectively enforced the law.																																				Indigenous Peoples										Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders constituted the country’s Indigenous population.  Despite federal and state government initiatives, Indigenous persons and communities had high incarceration rates, high unemployment rates, relatively low levels of education, and high incidences of domestic and family violence, substance abuse, and limited access to health services in comparison with other groups.  The National Indigenous Australians Agency was responsible for policy and programs related to Indigenous persons and communities.Indigenous groups held special collective native title rights in limited areas of the country, and federal and state laws enabled Indigenous groups to claim unused government land.  Indigenous ownership of land was predominantly in rural areas.  Indigenous-owned or -controlled land constituted approximately 20 percent of the country’s area (excluding native title lands) and almost half of the land in the Northern Territory.  The National Native Title Tribunal resolved conflicts over native land title applications through mediation and acted as a land-use arbitrator.  Native title rights did not extend to mineral or petroleum resources, and in cases where leaseholder rights and native title rights conflicted, leaseholder rights prevailed but did not extinguish native title rights.The Human Rights Commission had an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner.																																				Children										Child Abuse:  There were laws against child abuse; state and territorial governments enforced them effectively.  State and territorial child protection agencies investigated and initiated prosecutions for child neglect or abuse.  All states and territories had laws or guidelines that required members of certain designated professions to report suspected child abuse or neglect.  The federal government’s role in the prevention of child abuse included funding research, carrying out education campaigns, developing action plans against the commercial sexual exploitation of children, and funding community-based parenting programs.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  The legal minimum age for marriage was 18.  Persons ages 16 to 18 could apply to a judge or magistrate for an order authorizing marriage to a person age 18 or older; the marriage of the child also required parental or guardian consent.  Persons younger than age 18 could not marry each other; reports of marriages involving a person younger than age 18 were rare.  Forced marriage was a criminal offense; the definition of forced marriage covered all marriages involving children younger than age 16.  The government investigated reports of forced marriage.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  The law prohibited the commercial sexual exploitation of children, and the law was effectively enforced.The law prohibited citizens and residents from engaging in, facilitating, or benefiting from sexual activity with children overseas who were younger than age 16 and provided for a maximum sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment for violations.  The government continued its awareness campaign to deter child sex tourism through distribution of pamphlets to citizens and residents traveling overseas.The legal age for consensual sex ranged by state and territory from age 16 to 18.  Penalties for statutory rape varied across jurisdictions.  Defenses included reasonable grounds for believing the alleged survivor was older than the legal age of consent and situations in which the two persons were close in age.All states and territories criminalized the possession, production, and distribution of child pornography; authorities enforced the law.  Maximum penalties for these offenses ranged from four to 21 years’ imprisonment.  Federal laws criminalized using a “carriage service” (for example, the internet) for the purpose of possessing, producing, and supplying child pornography.  The maximum penalty for these offenses was 15 years’ imprisonment.  Under federal law, suspected pedophiles could be tried in the country regardless of where the crime was committed, and the maximum penalty for persistent sexual abuse of a child outside the country was 25 years’ imprisonment.																																				Antisemitism										According to the 2021 census, the country’s Jewish community numbered almost 100,000.  The Executive Council of Australian Jewry in December 2022 reported 478 antisemitic incidents, a 7 percent increase over the previous year.  Incidents detailed in the report included physical assault, vandalism, verbal abuse, harassment and intimidation, hate messages, graffiti, and antisemitic propaganda material such as banners, flags, leaflets, posters, and stickers.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization:  No laws criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults, and no seemingly neutral laws were disproportionately enforced against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) persons.Violence and Harassment:  There were no reports that authorities condoned or perpetrated violence against LGBTQI+ persons.  An August report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics found LGBTQI+ individuals experienced higher rates of sexual and physical violence and harassment than members of other groups.Discrimination:  The law provided protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and sex characteristics.  Such discrimination was specifically prohibited by law in a wide range of areas, including employment, housing, family law, taxes, child support, immigration, pensions, care of elderly persons, and social security.  The law explicitly recognized LGBTQI+ couples and their families and granted them rights equal to those of other persons.The laws were enforced, although legal protections against discrimination for LGBTQI+ persons generally included exemptions for religious entities.  It was lawful for private religious schools in Western Australia, including those receiving taxpayer funding, to fire LGBTQI+ staff, expel LGBTQI+ students, or refuse to enroll children of same-sex parents.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  All states and territories required proof of surgery, medical treatment, or psychological counseling as a prerequisite for changing an individual’s gender identity on the birth certificate.  The federal government recognized that individuals could identify as a gender other than the sex they were assigned at birth, or not identify as exclusively male or female, for the purpose of Federal records.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  So-called conversion therapies were outlawed in Victoria, Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory, but remained legal elsewhere.  The Australian Medical Association called for a ban on so-called conversion therapy.  The Australian Human Rights Commission supported ending medically unnecessary, nonconsensual surgeries on children born with variations in their sex characteristics.  The Christian Counsellors Association of Australia opposed “any form of mental health practice that treats homosexuality as a disorder, or seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation.”Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  There were no reports of such restrictions.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities could access education, health services, public buildings, and transportation on an equal basis with others.  The law prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment, education, publicly available premises, provision of goods and services, accommodation, clubs and associations, and other contexts.  The government effectively enforced the law, although discrimination against persons with disabilities occurred in employment.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of workers to form and join unions and associate freely domestically and internationally, to bargain collectively, and to conduct strikes under certain conditions.  The law prohibited antiunion discrimination and provided for reinstatement of workers fired for union activity.The law required that employers act in “good faith” when most employees wanted a collective agreement, although it placed some restrictions on the scope of collective bargaining.  A bargaining agent could represent either side in the process.  The law restricted strikes to the period when unions were negotiating a new enterprise agreement and specified that strikes needed to concern matters under negotiation.  The law provided for “protected action” and granted employers, employees, and unions legal immunity from claims of losses incurred by industrial action.  Industrial action could be authorized by a secret ballot of employees; unions raised concerns this requirement was unduly time consuming and expensive to implement.  The law imposed penalties on strikers for taking industrial action during the life of a collective bargaining agreement and prohibited sympathy strikes.The law permitted the government to stop strikes judged to have caused “significant economic harm” to the employer or third parties.  Some jurisdictions had further restrictions.The government effectively enforced applicable laws protecting freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the right to strike for workers.  Penalties for violations of freedom of association and collective bargaining protections for individuals and for corporations were commensurate with those for other laws involving denials of civil rights, such as discrimination, and were regularly enforced.  The Fair Work Commission was the national independent industrial relations management institution.  Its functions included facilitating dispute resolution.In December 2022, parliament passed the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 with the aim of improving workplace relations, ensuring secure jobs, and increasing pay.  The act gave the Fair Work Commission additional powers intended to resolve bargaining disputes more quickly and effectively.  The act also aimed to simplify regulatory compliance.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										Not all the worst forms of child labor were prohibited.  Not all state and territorial jurisdictions prohibited the use, procuring, or offering of a child younger than age 18 for certain illicit activities.  There was no federally mandated minimum age of employment.  In Victoria the minimum age of employment was 15 (with exceptions for family businesses and the entertainment industry).  Children were not permitted to work during school hours.  The minimum age for hazardous work in all states and territories was 18.Federal, state, and territorial governments effectively monitored and enforced the laws.  Penalties for violations were commensurate with those for analogous serious crimes, such as kidnapping, and were regularly applied.The Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman actively sought to educate young workers regarding their rights and responsibilities.  Compulsory educational requirements effectively prevented most children from joining the workforce full-time until age 17.  Although some violations of these laws occurred, there was no indication of a child labor problem in any specific sector.  There were some reports of commercial sexual exploitation of children.See the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor at  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings&nbsp; for information on the territories of Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island, and Norfolk Island.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws:  For a single adult living alone, the national minimum wage exceeded the poverty line defined as 50 percent of median income.  Most workers received higher compensation than the minimum wage through enterprise agreements or individual contracts.By law maximum weekly hours were 38 plus “reasonable” additional hours, which, by law, had to consider factors such as an employee’s health, family responsibilities, ability to claim overtime, pattern of hours in the industry, and amount of notice given.  An employee could refuse to work overtime if the request was “unreasonable.”Temporary workers included both part-time and casual employees.  Part-time employees had set hours and the same entitlements as full-time employees.  Casual employees were employed on a daily or hourly wage basis.  They did not receive paid annual or sick leave, but the law mandated additional pay to compensate for this, which employers generally respected.  Migrant worker visas required employers to make contributions to retirement funds and provide bonds to cover health insurance, worker’s compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, and other benefits.The Australian Human Rights Commission partnered with the Cleaning Accountability Framework to support decent work conditions and responsible business practices in the cleaning industry.Occupational Safety and Health:  Federal or state occupational safety and health (OSH) laws applied to every workplace, including in the informal economy.  By law both employers and workers were responsible for identifying health and safety hazards in the workplace.  Workers exercised their right to a safe workplace and had recourse to state health and safety commissions, which investigated complaints and ordered remedial action.  Workers could remove themselves from situations that endangered health or safety without jeopardy to their employment, and authorities effectively protected employees in this situation.  The law also enabled workers who were pregnant to transfer to a safe job regardless of their time in employment.There were reports of employers exploiting immigrant and foreign workers.  The Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman operated a system allowing migrant workers to report workplace concerns anonymously in any of 16 languages.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  The government effectively enforced laws related to minimum wage, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.  Each state and territory effectively enforced its occupational health and safety laws through dedicated bodies with powers to obtain and initiate prosecutions.  Unions used right-of-entry permits to investigate concerns.  Penalties for violations were commensurate with those for similar crimes and were regularly applied against violators.The Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman provided employers and employees advice on their rights and had the authority to investigate employers alleged to have exploited employees unlawfully.  The ombudsman also had authority to prosecute employers who did not meet their obligations to workers.  Ombudsman inspectors had authority to make unannounced inspections and initiate sanctions.  The Fair Work Ombudsman recovered 509 million Australian dollars ($322 million) in unpaid wages and entitlements for more than 250,000 employees through settlement agreements, employer self-reporting, and on-site enforcement tools.  The number of ombudsman inspectors was sufficient to enforce compliance.  Inspectors could order employers to compensate employees and assess fines.  The Fair Work Commission also enforced labor regulations.  From June 2022 to June 2023, the commission received and processed more than 31,500 complaints.There were some reports of violations in sectors employing primarily migrant workers.  The World Bank estimated the country’s informal sector at approximately 10 percent of GDP.  The Fair Work Ombudsman focused on sectors with the greatest risk for workers, including agriculture, building and construction, healthcare, restaurants and large corporations, and universities.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																						c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Indigenous Peoples																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Australia																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
- Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Australia’s Minister for Defense Industry, Minister for International Development and the Pacific Conroy HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Australia’s Minister for Defense Industry, Minister for International Development and the Pacific Conroy				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Australia’s Minister for Defense Industry, Minister for International Development and the Pacific Conroy																																		Readout																														April 10, 2024																																							The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell met yesterday with Australia’s Minister for Defense Industry, Minister for International Development and the Pacific Pat Conroy. The two discussed ongoing efforts to deepen engagement with Pacific Island partner countries and through the Pacific Islands Forum to advance economic opportunity, digital connectivity, climate resilience, and security.Separately, the Deputy and the Minister reviewed AUKUS implementation, reflecting on the significant progress made since the March 2023 Leader’s announcement in San Diego, and discussed next steps to enable deeper defense and security cooperation between the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom.						Tags																					Australia																								Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Deputy Secretary of State																								Office of the Spokesperson																								United Kingdom