Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Modern slavery hides in plain sight in business practices and supply chains in Australia and in every other country in the world. It goes without saying that people must be able to work in conditions that are free from exploitation and degradation. Modern slavery refers to criminal and some nefarious slavery-like business practices that deny employees their self-determination and agency. This includes not just the better-known human trafficking and forced labour but also debt bondage, child labour and domestic servitude. In Australia, new migrants, workers who are temporary visa holders and students are particularly vulnerable to modern slavery practices.

We're very fortunate in Western Australia to have the expertise of the international human rights group Walk Free, which is focused on the eradication of modern slavery. Walk Free produces the Global Slavery Index, which provides the most comprehensive data on modern slavery in the world. In Australia, seven people in 100 are estimated to be vulnerable to modern slavery. In 2021, a total of 41,000 people were estimated to be living in slavery in Australia. This is, of course, a huge problem, but supply chains present an even greater issue. Many Australian companies regularly do business with countries with a much higher vulnerability to modern slavery. Walk Free reports that Australia is estimated to annually import nearly $26 billion worth of products at risk of having been made with forced labour.

With globalisation comes greater competition. Companies are always on the lookout for any competitive advantages. Opportunities to access cheaper labour costs may be one such advantage. We need to develop widespread business awareness and practices in Australia that recognise the factors that increase the risk of modern slavery both in Australia and in overseas supply chains—factors such as gender inequality, poverty and, in particular, an absence of workplace regulation and safeguards in other countries. There's a lot more work to do.

The current Modern Slavery Act imposes reporting conditions only on entities carrying on business in Australia—both Australian and foreign—that have a consolidated revenue of at least $100 million in Australia. These large companies must submit a modern slavery statement every year. They're required to report on the risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains and the actions taken by them to address those risks. That's the extent of the reporting required.

In May 2023 Professor John McMillan AO, conducted a mandatory review of the Modern Slavery Act, which resulted in 30 significant recommendations for reform. One of the 30 recommendations was the establishment of the Commonwealth Anti-Slavery Commissioner, which is the subject of this bill and was foreshadowed by the 2023 budget allocation of $8 million for this role. I welcome the appointment of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner and I will support this bill because it's a step in the right direction, but I do so with some reservation. It feels distinctly like the government is putting the cart before the horse. My concern is that, if other reforms are not implemented at the same time, the Anti-Slavery Commissioner will have limited ability to actually uncover slavery or to support well-intentioned companies to take reasonable and necessary steps to avoid slavery risks and to hold to account businesses that are knowingly condoning modern slavery.

It would have made more sense to include this new appointment as part of a comprehensive package of other much-needed reforms to the Modern Slavery Act. I want to talk about what other reforms are needed and why they need to happen before or at the same time as the creation of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner role—or, in the worst case, only a short time afterwards. The McMillan review concludes that modern slavery is not yet being treated with the seriousness it deserves in Australia. The main criticism of the act relates to two things: firstly, the standard, substance and effectiveness of reporting and, secondly, the lack of enforceability.

The main criticism of the act relates to two things. Firstly, it's the standard substance and effectiveness of reporting, and, secondly, it's the lack of enforceability. To improve reporting, we need to reach more companies, embed a more consistent reporting methodology and ensure that reporting is based on reasonable due diligence. In relation to reaching more companies, it's recommended that we lower the mandatory reporting threshold from $100 million of consolidated income to $50 million. Currently, only 3,000 entities in Australia are required to report. Lowering the threshold will likely require another 2,500 companies to report and send a message that all companies should take the risk of modern slavery seriously. I understand that there's always a trade-off when creating new regulation for business, but a company turning over $50 million should be required to address modern slavery, because smaller companies are often prominent in high-risk industries, and this would bring Australia in line with reporting thresholds in other countries. It's important we send a clear message that modern slavery is not acceptable in Australian businesses.

The second part of reporting that needs improving is consistency. To achieve this, we need clearer guidance given to reporting entities. The review highlights the poor standard and inconsistency of the modern slavery reports currently received. Businesses clearly require more assistance to respond with best practice. Businesses generally want to avoid slavery in their supply chains, but it is complicated. In a previous role, I chaired Wesfarmers' ethical sourcing forum trying to address supply chain risks, including slavery, across Coles, Target, Kmart, Bunnings and other businesses, report appropriately and share best practice between divisions. It's a difficult challenge, and I know how important it is to get good guidance to ensure that well-intentioned companies can do the right thing.

One of the principal functions of the new commissioner listed in this bill is to provide support to entities to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains. It's not clear what this actually means. Can the commissioner examine and monitor business practices? To what extent can the commissioner act on information provided about business practices that may or may not amount to modern slavery? Or is it merely intended that the commissioner will provide entities with feedback on their modern slavery reports, how they might improve them and no more? It would be really helpful if it were clearer what support the commissioner can provide and, critically, the outcomes that the support is intended to achieve. Effective support requires tangible guidance that goes beyond providing a checklist.

The bill should go further and include as part of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner's functions the provision of specific guidance that demonstrates how reporting entities can make better assessment and measurement of risk, demonstrates how entities and sectors can identify the vulnerabilities associated with different types of modern slavery, provides best practice for reporting of incidents, responses and remediation and provides scope to monitor responses and actions relating to actual and not merely perceived risks. The third improvement needed for reporting is a system of due diligence. Companies should be required to undertake due diligence in their supply chains rather than just turning a blind eye. They should account for their responses to actual risks rather than merely providing a theoretical list of perceived risks. These are the reporting changes that are needed.

The second main criticism of the act and the review is the lack of enforceability. The functions of the commissioner need to extend beyond support and promoting compliance. The consequences of modern slavery in Australia have implications for other policies and laws of the Commonwealth that go beyond the Modern Slavery Act. Modern slavery has the potential to intersect with criminal justice, law enforcement, victim support services, migration, visas, employment law and procurement, to name just a few. For our Anti-Slavery Commissioner to be effective, we must give them the power to monitor our whole-of-Australia response to modern slavery and to make referrals or recommendations to agencies and departments on how they could strengthen or improve our collective response.

The bill includes provisions for the Anti-Slavery Commissioner to request relevant information from a Commonwealth agency, and, where it is reasonably practical, that agency must comply. This creates a much weaker obligation than the duty to cooperate created by both the modern slavery legislation in New South Wales and the equivalent in the United Kingdom. I urge the minister to include, as recommended by Walk Free, a function for the commissioner to make recommendations to any government department or public authority about the exercise of its functions as they relate to modern slavery. Further, the minister should include a duty to cooperate with the commissioner on the part of departments and agencies. An antislavery commissioner that's truly independent must be able to monitor and reach out to different departments and sectors about other laws and policies and seek cooperation where that may impact upon or have consequences for modern slavery. As part of this, the bill is also strangely silent on the issue of how the new commissioner will interact with Australia's National Action Plan to Combat Modern Slavery and our national roundtable, and in relation to any mechanism for collaboration with Australia's Ambassador to Counter Modern Slavery, People Smuggling and Human Trafficking. If we're serious about strengthening our response to modern slavery then we must integrate the functions of all the major players in this puzzle.

I also want to say something about the commissioner's role in relation to victims of modern slavery. The bill anticipates functions that are largely administrative. A commissioner can pass on to victims information relating to any available resources, programs and services, and can also engage with victims to inform the consideration of measures for addressing modern slavery. The commissioner may not investigate complaints relating to modern slavery; indeed, it has no complaint or dispute resolution handling role at all. In fact, the bill is silent on the issue of how the commissioner will respond to complaints it receives and to whistleblowers. There is no specified referral process or mechanism to appropriately deal with information or to activate other agencies dealing with complaints received. These complaints could be time sensitive and could have very serious implications for victims. It's not adequate to cover these scenarios under the commissioner's function to consult and liaise with other departments and agencies. There should be a proper mechanism which addresses referrals of serious conduct and the status of whistleblowers. This, again, brings into focus the need for reform of public interest disclosure and whistleblower legislation. Each of these areas of needed reform will impact upon the functions of an antislavery commissioner, so it seems inefficient to legislate for this new role in a vacuum without implementing the broader reforms required.

In conclusion, I welcome the appointment of an antislavery commissioner. However, the government must press ahead with much-needed reform of the Modern Slavery Act. I also urge the government to amend this bill to enhance the scope of the commissioner's role and powers so they can be part of driving real change. This would include, firstly, empowering an antislavery commissioner to provide more tangible guidance to reporting entities and set stronger expectations and obligations for reporting and due diligence; secondly, creating a mechanism to refer complaints and protection of victims and whistleblowers; thirdly, creating a duty to cooperate with the commissioner; and, fourthly, integrating the role and authority of the commissioner within the overall modern slavery framework in Australia.

See this speech in context