Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken already of the disgrace of modern slavery and how it is, sadly, still happening today. I welcome the Modern Slavery Bill 2018, although I do have some concerns that it still has some deficiencies. I note the shadow minister for justice, the member for Hotham, has moved some amendments to correct those deficiencies. I support those amendments.

Although modern slavery takes many shapes, one form relies on us as consumers to continue its business model. This is the modern slavery that occurs in the supply chain of the goods that we buy. In almost everything we purchase—the food we eat, the clothes we wear, our household items and building materials—modern slavery may be present in those supply chains. It is almost impossible for us, as consumers, to know it is present. Anti-Slavery Australia told the inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act that:

It is difficult to estimate the extent of practices of human trafficking and slavery in global supply chains. This is due to the clandestine nature of human trafficking and slavery, combined with the lack of transparency regarding supply chains at both the Australian and international level.

It is often very difficult to determine just where a product was produced and exactly how an element of a product has been made. For example, Ms Kate Nicholl, an independent supply chain consultant and lecturer at the University of Melbourne, gave the inquiry the example of a shirt made in Bangladesh that is sold by an Australian retailer:

The back of this shirt will say 'made in Bangladesh' but what that actually means is that this shirt was assembled in Bangladesh. The fabric, the cotton, the dye, if there is a zip in it, if there is a button in it—all of those materials that go into assembling that product in Bangladesh can be sourced from elsewhere, of which there is largely not a lot of transparency. It can be up to three tiers or four tiers in a supply chain, and that is where the workers are vulnerable to exploitation.

This bill will establish a modern slavery reporting requirement. It will require certain large businesses and other entities in Australia to make annual modern slavery statements to the responsible minister. The bill provides for mandatory reporting for Australian entities that have annual revenue of $100 million or more. Entities with lower annual revenue will not be compelled to make the statements but may do so voluntarily, and concerned consumers should consider asking them to so do. Many stakeholders have expressed concern that the threshold for mandatory reporting is too high and that entities with lower annual revenue should be compelled to make annual reports.

One of the deficiencies in this bill, which particularly troubles me, is the lack of any penalties for noncompliance with the act. A mandatory scheme with no penalty regime is like a tiger without teeth: it would soon starve to death. Why would a company report if there were no penalties for not reporting? There are some costs associated with reporting, so if your competitor chooses not to report, why would you? This is why Labor has moved an amendment to the bill to include penalties in the act. We cannot leave big business to police themselves. That has been made abundantly clear in evidence emerging from the banking royal commission, an inquiry that Prime Minister Morrison voted against 26 times and that he called a 'populist whinge'.

In the United Kingdom, where there are no penalties attached to reporting, only around 30 per cent of businesses who are supposed to be reporting actually report. That is fewer than one in three. That is not good enough. I would have hoped that our government would have learnt from that lesson from the United Kingdom and made sure that our modern slavery act actually had some teeth. Modern slavery in the supply chain is not something that is going to disappear overnight. It is going to take perseverance and a consistently strong response to those that continue to allow it to happen.

Australia is a trading nation. Our economic growth is underpinned by our ability to sell our goods and services overseas and to buy from the rest of the world too. It is important that we nurture our relationships with our trading partners, if for no other reason than for our own economic prosperity. But there is a secondary and equally important reason for nurturing these trading relationships: by promoting open and transparent relationships between our trading partners, we are better able to monitor and influence the transition to ethical supply chains in those countries. For example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, debated today, between the 11 signatory countries provides an opportunity to engage with our trading partners in a forum that is mutually advantageous. There are many clauses in the TPP that I would personally not have supported. However, if handled well, it should allow trust to develop between Australia and our trading partners.

Australia has just signed a trade agreement with Indonesia. The previous Labor government launched negotiations with Indonesia in 2012 because we recognise that our trading relationship with Indonesia has been extremely limited. Indonesia is the fourth-largest country in the world by population, and by 2050 it's projected to be the world's fourth-largest economy. It is one of our nearest geographical neighbours, yet it is currently our 13th-largest trading partner. Trade between Indonesia and Australia has actually gone backwards over the past five years. Tragically, other ties have followed suit. There are now fewer Australians speaking Bahasa than in the 1970s, and that is a disgrace. The contrast between two of our near neighbours could not be greater. More than 18,000 Australians export to New Zealand, and only about 2,000 export to Indonesia—one country, about five million people, and the other country, Indonesia, about 270 million. As one of our closest next-door neighbours, Indonesia barely gets a glance over the fence.

This does not bode well for building an open and transparent relationship. When it comes to making sure that our supply chains are free from modern slavery, such relationships are critically important. Ensuring that Australia has mutually beneficial trading relationships is crucial. Labor is conscious of the importance of these relationships. A Shorten Labor government, should it be elected, has committed to boosting transparency and analyses of trade agreements by improving the process of negotiation right from the start. A Shorten Labor government would also introduce laws that prohibit governments from signing trade agreements that waive labour market testing. That is important in the context of this bill to prevent modern slavery. The Liberals have eroded Australia's trust in trade by signing trade agreements that allow companies to bring in foreign workers without first checking whether there's an Australian who can do that job. Sadly, the Liberals have let labour market testing requirements be waived. Where there is already an Australian worker willing and able to do the job, there is no need to bring in workers from other countries—unless, obviously, an unscrupulous employer is intending to exploit the foreign worker and thus undermine local wages and conditions.

Sadly, migrants are most at risk of experiencing forms of modern slavery in Australia. In recent years authorities have discovered that men and women who have been trafficked here have been exploited in areas of work such as domestic work, hospitality, and agriculture and construction industries as well as in the sex industry. Submissions to the inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia last year gave evidence of cases of modern slavery in areas including migrant workers in the agricultural construction and meat processing industries, backpackers in the agricultural industry, a domestic worker trafficked by a foreign diplomat, and private domestic workers. Limiting the ability to bring workers to Australia to those who can work in industries where there are not enough Australian workers able to fill those vacancies will go at least some way to eliminating this form of exploitation.

As I've said, I support this bill. It is more than time that we eradicated modern slavery everywhere we can. I spoke recently in this House about gender inequality. Modern slavery impacts on many more women than men. In 2014 over 70 per cent of the 17,752 victims of human trafficking were women or girls; 54 per cent of those victims suffered sexual exploitation. Australia is primarily a destination country for human trafficking. Women from Asia are trafficked here to be put to work in the sex work industry, amongst others. I have met with the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans on many occasions here in Parliament House, and I greatly admire the work ACRATH does. In the past 12 months alone they have assisted 28 trafficked women through their companionship program. Victims of modern slavery are often incredibly vulnerable and face cultural, social, economic and language barriers. Organisations including ACRATH have joined Labor in calling for the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner.

Anti Slavery Australia has also recommended that the bill include the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner. They say that the commissioner should monitor, oversee and coordinate Australia's response to human trafficking and slavery; raise awareness and provide education and guidance on human trafficking and slavery; conduct inquiries of systemic abuses in Australia; and receive and investigate complaints from individuals and organisations that have a sufficient interest. Labor again, as we did earlier in the year, call on the government to establish an independent antislavery commissioner to assist victims. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government instead set up a business engagement unit to assist big business, when their resources would be much more efficient helping the victims of slavery. Labor continues to call on the Morrison government to establish an office of an independent antislavery commissioner to help victims of modern slavery and stamp out this sickening crime. With that I welcome this bill.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Hotham. The amendment has been moved because what the government is proposing with the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 doesn't go far enough and, unfortunately, ignores the recommendations of several inquiries, particularly around the appointment of an independent commissioner to look at these issues. Quite simply, slavery is shocking. That we as a nation aren't doing all we can to prevent slavery is saddening. As a country and as a parliament we must do more to prevent slavery, servitude, forced labour, deceptive recruiting, trafficking in persons, debt bondage, forced marriage and organ trafficking. Forced labour is barred everywhere in the world, yet tens of millions are subject to this appalling practice. The vast majority of modern slaves are working in factories, on construction sites, on fishing boats and in agricultural industries across the world. It's estimated that a quarter of such exploitation is happening outside of a victim's country of origin.

Australia is not immune to the scourge of slavery. The Global Slavery Index estimates that up to 15,000 people are struggling in conditions of modern slavery here in Australia. This includes forced labour, sexual exploitation of adults and children, and forced marriages. It's quite shocking and saddening. To most Australians it would be unbelievable that these sorts of things still occur in modern society, but there's no emotion involved for those who commit these most heinous of human rights abuses. Slavery is underpinned by a simple business model: reduce the cost of labour to something close to zero and reap the benefits of that toil. Slavers enjoy these fruits despite the bitterness of terror and tears. Both violence and threats of deception are the business strategy of the cold, calculating slaver. Psychological abuse, coercion and mental manipulation play a significant role in the recruitment and control of modern-day slaves, particularly in relationships where there is an imbalance of power between the slavers and those being exploited. Perpetrators often live and work with their victims, watching and managing their movements, taking them to work and collecting them. Victims of slavery don't travel alone. Their identity papers and passports are often taken away when they enter the country in which these actions take place.

Our fellow humans are forced by people into work they would not otherwise do, yet modern slavery's business model goes beyond the simple reduction of labour costs. Researchers at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom have highlighted that modern slavers are also deriving revenue from the sale of additional goods and services to workers under their control. This is the 'slaves as consumers' aspect of modern slavery. This can include accommodation, food and transport provided at monopoly prices to workers with no other choices. It's all upside for those doing the exploiting, but for the workers it's a continued spiral into deeper debt. This too can provide more opportunity for the slavers to turn the screws. In order to service the debt, workers may then secure funds from family members abroad or instant loan services which enable their exploiters to generate additional revenue. This business model of despair encourages slavers to deliberately take on more workers than they need for the work they expect to get done. This is the ugly face of the 'growth despite the costs' mantra.

It is also a reflection of the constant innovation in the business models of those doing the exploitation. That's why we talk of modern-day slavery. It is because of the innovative aspects of what's being done and the techniques that are being used to exploit people. But whether it was back in the 18th century or is in the modern 21st century, the principle is still the same—that is, the shocking and horrible abuse of human rights and exploitation of people for economic advantage. That may help to explain why there are more people trapped in slavery in the world today than there have been at any other point in modern history.

The slavers are also increasingly using social media, particularly to recruit migrant labourers. They use platforms such as Facebook to promise unrealistically high pay and share only a very general description of the work involved, and, of course, there's very little information on workers' rights, recruitment fees or deceptive recruitment. The challenge is that it can be difficult to identify exploitative recruitment online. Detailed conversations with dodgy employers are usually taking place in private and illegal activity often happens alongside what seems like and constitutes legal behaviour. The slavers often use aggressive, credible threats to create anxiety, despair and humiliation to ensure compliant behaviour. This non-physical type of control means that modern slavery is easy to conceal. It's harder to see. It's encouraging to see that some of organisations, like Facebook, are working with the United Nations and grassroots organisations to raise awareness of human smuggling, trafficking and forced labour.

It is clear that businesses here in Australia can also play a major role in either facilitating modern day slavery or helping to eradicate it. Companies can be culpable by driving down supplier prices or demanding ever-quicker production. These actions can play a big role in pushing suppliers to pursue cheap labour solutions and illicit subcontracting. A supply chain shouldn't be based on workers shackled in chains. Slavery is indeed a weak link in corporate supply chains. Forced labour was once a niche human rights matter for many large companies but today it needs to be at the forefront of corporate concerns.

One year ago, Labor committed to modern slavery legislation with penalties and, importantly, an independent anti-slavery commissioner. Our announcement was warmly greeted by business, civil society and unions and we're deeply disappointed that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have put forward a modern slavery bill without those penalties and have chosen to have a business engagement unit instead of an independent anti-slavery commissioner. The absence of penalties in this bill is also quite baffling. We cannot leave it to big business to police themselves on slavery. There have to be penalties for the serious breaches of human rights that we have seen constituting modern slavery. We can't leave it to big business simply to police themselves on this one. Evidence provided to the Senate inquiry into this bill showed that in the United Kingdom, where there is a similar regime without penalties, the percentage of businesses that have reported still hovers at around 30 per cent of those that supposedly have an obligation to do so.

Civil society groups have also argued the need for penalties for companies that breach the Modern Slavery Act. The overwhelming majority of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Senate inquiry put in their submissions that this was a necessary must-have in any legislation when it came to modern slavery legislation. Those organisations include the Human Rights Law Centre, the Law Council of Australia and Oxfam. They've all called for penalties to be included in this bill. That's why Labor, despite supporting this bill, will continue our fight to ensure that we get a decent set of provisions that do provide an active deterrent to slavery in this country and, importantly, provide deterrent penalties for those who breach their human rights obligations and who undertake slavery in the modern context. I don't think there would be one Australian who would believe that it would be acceptable to exploit people and abuse their human rights in this manner. If that is the case, then there should be stiff penalties for those who do and there should be an independent body, in the form of an independent anti-slavery commissioner, that has oversight and makes sure that the laws and penalties are enforced.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before coming to this place, I had the immense privilege of working as a lawyer representing a number of low-paid workers and their unions across this country. One sector in particular that we spent a lot of time on was in the textile and clothing sector. Many people hear reports about sweatshops and Third World conditions, and what they probably don't realise is that, in many cases here in our backyards, we have people working on a similar basis. The people who are making clothes might be getting paid as little as $3 or $4 an hour in Australia, in flats in Richmond in my electorate or out in Springvale or elsewhere around the country, and those are clothes that go on to sell for a few hundred dollars. They're often some big brand names and they're often sold right here in Australia.

The companies who sell those clothes for enormous profit, paying very, very low wages—clothes usually made by older women, but not exclusively, who speak a language other than English as their first language—get away with this through things called contracting chains. The companies at the top, big brand names, will say to a middle company, 'We want you to make us some clothes.' Of course, you've got to abide by all the relevant legal requirements, but they then turn a blind eye to whether those things actually happen or not. The companies in the middle go off and then may, in turn, contract someone else. There could be two or three steps before you actually get to the worker at the end. The worker at the end, who will be sewing the brand name onto the garment, may have no legal relationship with that label. There are two or three intermediary steps—sometimes four or five—in between that allow the big company at the top to wash its hands of what's happening but that result in the person down the bottom working for below award wages and conditions and often under a significant threat. The companies in the middle say to them: 'You can complain if you like. You can try and organise or try and demand the basic things that you're entitled to under the law, but, if you do that, we'll just go and get someone else to do the work.' So, as a result, you end up in an extraordinarily vulnerable position and you will get paid below award wages. That happens here in Australia.

The Textile Clothing and Footwear Union has done enormous work not only in organising those people and taking those companies to court but also in changing the law, saying: 'No. If you're sitting at the top of the chain making a lot of money out of this, you bear some responsibility. There will now be the ability to take you to court if it turns out that the person who's doing the work is doing it in conditions that Australia wouldn't agree with.' That is a good principle. What we know is that that same system that leads to exploitation here in Australia applies now across the whole world, because, of course, capital is quite mobile and is able to go and engage in contracts overseas. And, in many instances, where wages are much lower even than you can get away with paying under those extraordinary arrangements I've just spoken about in Australia, they will go and do it.

We also know that a problem in Australia that is an especially big problem overseas is that many people work in what could only be described as slave-like conditions. That touches Australia very, very deeply. For example, in my electorate we have a very large representation from the Eritrean community. There have been some significant changes in Eritrea and Ethiopia during the course of this year, and a lot of people are looking at that with great hope and hoping that some of those changes, including around conscription but also around border disputes, will lead to some long-lasting peace and an improvement in human rights in the region. People have such hope because, in the many years before that, some horrific stories have come out of these regions. What is said systematically is that people are forced into slave labour and forced labour arrangements.

This happens when you've got an extraordinarily vulnerable population where you have wars. In many instances, as we are seeing famines and droughts sweeping through the region, you have people desperate for the basic freedoms that we would take for granted. They are forced into a position where they're told: 'Well, not only don't you have a government against which you can assert basic human rights but also we are now going to come and make you work, sometimes'—this was previously alleged, and Amnesty International and the UN have said this—'with the government's support. We're going to put you into a form of forced labour.' The reason that's important for Australia is that many Australian mining companies operate in Africa, particularly in some of those Horn of Africa countries and right across the region.

Just as it's no longer acceptable for companies in the clothing industry to say, 'You might be sewing the label onto our clothes, but we have no legal relationship with you, so we're going to turn a blind eye,' now it's no longer defensible, nor should it be legally acceptable, for Australian companies, including Australian mining companies, to have interests in the Africa region and to turn a blind eye to whether or not forced labour is being used to dig up their resources and have them shipped across to Australia. We've seen terrible examples of companies from Australia going abroad to try and defend governments' abuses of human rights overseas. In Canada, Canadian mining companies have actually found themselves taken to court because of claims of forced labour in Africa. It's only a matter of time before it happens in Australia as well. You would think, in light of knowing what we know about slavery in Australia, slavery around the world and the potential exposure of Australian companies, the government might seize that opportunity to come here with a bill that would actually do something and have a significant chance of winding it back.

It is good that we are debating a modern slavery bill in this parliament. That is a good thing. But, just as we needed laws that held large companies like Nike and Adidas to account and enabled them to be taken to court, we need laws in this country that have teeth. To pass modern slavery legislation but then outsource effective compliance of that to the very same people that this is meant to be regulating raises the question about whether the bill is going to work at all. That is why during the course of the inquiry into this matter and elsewhere the Greens, others and the opposition have said, 'You really need an independent commissioner to be able to have oversight over this, because otherwise how can you be assured that anything is going to change?' We have also heard the likes of the Law Council front up and say: 'Why are there no penalties in this bill? How is it that this bill seeks to impose obligations on people, yet there is no penalty if they breach them?' I will come back to this in a minute.

There are a number of other things that need to be changed in this bill. During the course of the Senate inquiry, we made the point that, at a minimum, this act should be reviewed on a regular and ongoing three-yearly basis by a statutory antislavery commissioner. We think that the first of those reviews, if there were to be an antislavery commissioner, should consider lower thresholds, the targeting of businesses in high-risk industries regardless of annual turnover, appropriate and commensurate resourcing of the commission and penalties for noncompliance. That has to be considered soon.

We also call on the government to amend this bill to include a public register of compliance for entities over the reportable threshold and a requirement in the act that entities over the reportable threshold comply with the act to be eligible for tender for government contracts, because we know that government, to the extent that it holds the purse strings, has the ability to drive very significant change. What should also be considered—it's not in this bill but it needs to be considered—are the needs, scope and application of a national victim support and compensation scheme as the next tranche of modern slavery legislation in Australia.

All of those things would be useful improvements to the bill, and I expect that the bill will pass in some form, and that will be good. But we've got an opportunity to make it better. And as we're making it better, the simple test we should apply is: is this bill actually going to drive change? I think everyone is agreed now on the need to take measures to stamp out modern slavery, but the question's got to be not whether we're debating a bill that's simply got 'modern slavery' in the title but whether we're going to bring about change in the sector.

As I've said, we've heard some very distressing examples of Australian companies—and the Human Rights Law Centre has shone the spotlight on this—being prepared to stand next to regimes whose human rights records would be questionable at best in countries where forced labour is going on and not only not say anything about it but actually throw their weight behind the current arrangements. That is a grave concern. And as Australian interests expand—mining interests in Africa in particular—we are going to need some independent oversight of this to ensure that it has teeth, because those businesses are operating a long way away. They might be based in Australia and headquartered in Australia, but the operations take place a long way away. It is very difficult, simply from behind a desk, to monitor that. And I would suggest that it is nonsensical to simply say, 'Well, we're going to rely on self-reporting' to say that there are no problems, because we've seen that that hasn't worked so far. There is very much a need for someone with teeth to be able to go in and investigate what is happening and whether or not, under the name of Australian companies, forced labour is taking place elsewhere.

I reiterate that in looking at what's happening in Eritrea and Ethiopia a lot of people are hoping that recent changes might ameliorate some of that, but that's happening independent of what Australia can do. That's no excuse for Australia not to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that those supply chains do not allow companies to turn a blind eye to what is happening. As this bill progresses through the Senate, Senator Nick McKim will be making further comments about the Greens position with respect to this bill. But I'll say now that I sincerely hope that we don't miss this opportunity, where attention is focused on modern slavery—something that is very real, and greater than many people think—to actually put in place laws that have teeth and that will drive real change. It would be an extraordinary pity if the government simply said that they're concerned only about a facade of action, when we could be doing a bit better than what the government has proposed.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Slavery is a very serious problem that many Australians would imagine has decreased in scope over the last years or decades or centuries. But in fact it's estimated that over 40 million people around the world are victims of modern slavery—a higher number of people trapped in slavery today than at any other time in human history, and two-thirds of those people are in our region. Slavery is supported by supply chains of products and services that many of us use every day. We know that modern slavery occurs in many forms—wage theft, dangerous and unpaid work, abuse, imprisonment and deprivation. It's vulnerable people, including foreign and seasonal workers, students, casualised and marginalised workers, and people with social, economic, language and cultural barriers, who are most at risk, and we know that many of these are women.

Labor's position on this is clear: we will not tolerate the exploitation of these workers and the human rights abuses that go along with this exploitation. Modern slavery is often obscured by those who profit from it. As a society, we won't be able to end it unless we have laws dedicated to preventing it and to stopping it and resources to support that legislation.

Last year, after lengthy consultation with advocates, activists and other stakeholders, Labor announced a modern slavery policy. I want to take a moment to recognise the extraordinary work of the shadow minister for justice, Clare O'Neil, in developing Labor's position. Clare really did terrific work in this area. Business, civil society and the union movement have all helped inform Labor's policy. Labor is committed to establishing a modern slavery act to make supply chains transparent, to apply penalties for noncompliance and to establish a statutory, independent antislavery commissioner. We called on the government to match our commitment.

Of course we support this legislation, but, sadly, this legislation does not match the commitments that Labor has made in this area. After significant pressure, the government brought forward this bill. The bill, sadly, does not adequately address all of the advice and information that Labor took into account when we developed our approach in this area. Most importantly, the bill doesn't provide for penalties for companies that breach the provisions within the bill, and the government has proposed a watered-down business engagement unit instead of establishing an independent antislavery commissioner. Those weaknesses in this bill are disappointing. The government has shown time and again that it is too weak to tackle important issues like this, especially when it comes to regulating the businesses that are profiting from modern slavery. We can and must do better.

Labor has moved amendments to this bill to introduce penalties for companies that fail to comply with the modern slavery act and we're also calling on the government to establish an office of an independent antislavery commissioner. Labor acknowledges the genuine passion that many in the business community have shown for this issue and the broad commitment within the Australian community to work against slavery. But where companies don't comply with the bill in its current form there should be penalties attached. The proposed business engagement unit is toothless and it has no enforcement powers. Key stakeholders, including ACRATH, Anti-Slavery Australia and the ACTU, have joined Labor in calling for the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner.

Modern slavery is often difficult for authorities to detect, investigate and prosecute. There are also significant gaps in the support services for victims of modern slavery. An independent antislavery commissioner would help fill those gaps, firstly, by working with victims of slavery to receive inquiries and complaints. Secondly, it would assist businesses in building best practice to protect their supply chains. Thirdly, it would work with civil society to help prevent and detect slavery in Australia. Lastly, it would allow us to enhance our global efforts to fight slavery, including by working with other countries and with international organisations that are working to end slavery.

Labor is very concerned that the bill also includes forced marriage as one of the forms of exploitation that business would report on. Forced marriage is one of the most serious forms of exploitation, human being of human being. Forced marriage is often accompanied by sexual abuse for extended periods of time, isolation and the taking of victims overseas against their will. It is extremely serious. But to include it in this bill might have unintended consequences—a view expressed by a number of organisations that are active in this area—including potentially driving forced marriage further underground. Our view is based on advice from advocates who work every day on preventing forced marriage and assisting people who are at risk of forced marriage. Australia's current approach to forced marriage isn't working. Under the Turnbull government there was not one successful prosecution of forced marriage offences under the Criminal Code. Victims have limited civil protections and struggle to access government financial support. So earlier this year, to deal specifically with forced marriage, Labor committed to establishing a regime of force marriage protection orders, increasing funding for civil society organisations, establishing a forced marriage unit to provide a one-stop shop to connect victims to support services and government agencies, and providing assistance for Australians who have been taken overseas to be married against their will.

We are also committed to removing the cooperation requirement. Currently victims of forced marriage who want to access government funded support have to agree to cooperate with law enforcement. You can imagine how difficult it becomes when you're talking about a young person potentially having to give evidence against their parents or other family members. Having to testify against their own family in order to access critical support might actually prevent a person making a complaint in the first place or accessing support. We don't believe that's adequate. The government recently announced a limited trial to improve these support services, but that trial doesn't go nearly far enough. We believe that the government should match Labor's forced marriage policy commitment, not risk driving this practice further underground.

I acknowledged the work by Clare O'Neil, the shadow minister for justice, on modern slavery, and I should also acknowledge her work in the area of forced marriage. It really has been first rate, but, of course, there are many people in the Australian community who've been working on these issues for many years. I'd particularly like to acknowledge Dr Jennifer Byrne and her team at Anti-Slavery Australia and the many civil society and faith based organisations that are active in this area, including the Uniting Church; the Salvation Army; members of the Australian Freedom Network; STOP THE TRAFFIK; Fiona McLeod SC and Morry Bailes from the Law Council of Australia; the Walk Free Foundation, particularly Andrew Forrest and his family, who have been very active in this antislavery area; and my friend and former colleague former Senator Chris Evans. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and individual unions have also been extraordinary in their fight against the extreme exploitation of workers in industries as diverse as textiles, clothing and footwear; agriculture; transport; domestic; child care; and construction—particular parts of the construction industry have been very much at risk of slave-like conditions for some of the workers. So I acknowledge the very fine contribution of these organisations over many years.

I just want to finish by speaking a little bit about Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans. ACRATH have really done extraordinary work in this area of modern slavery and also in the area of trafficking of people. They have been fierce and persistent advocates for the victims of trafficking. As well as their advocacy work, they provide services that have been a lifeline to trafficked individuals in Australia and in our region. ACRATH has been instrumental in shining a light on the slavery that exists today, including the fact that Australia is a destination for trafficked people. ACRATH gives people who have been trafficked hope, and it gives them a voice.

Today, I want to particularly acknowledge the work that ACRATH has done on forced marriage. ACRATH has produced materials for use in the school curriculum to improve awareness of the practice of forced marriage in Australia and to make sure that all students know that forced marriage is illegal and know where they can turn if they believe they or a friend or someone they know is at risk of forced marriage. These materials were piloted in schools across three Australian states—South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. Evaluation of the pilot shows that the materials were very effective. The program evaluation report says, 'Schools provide the potential for tens of thousands of young people to be educated about human rights and the way that the practice of forced marriage violates these rights.' The program empowers young people to advocate for their own rights and for the rights of their peers. The funding for this was absolutely minuscule: $60,000 was what they needed to run this program. Unfortunately, ACRATH now have uncertainty about whether they'll be able to continue this work, because there is no certainty about their ongoing funding. I would like to take this opportunity to call on the government to make sure that programs like this can be given a certain future and that organisations like ACRATH are properly supported to continue and to expand their work to eliminate trafficking in all its forms, including forced marriage.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members who have contributed to the debate this week on this important bill. We're united on both sides of this House in our shared commitment to combating modern slavery, and I'd like to thank the many people who have contributed not just in this debate but in the committee which considered this matter at great length, chaired so well by the member for Dunkley. I thank him and all of his colleagues on the committee.

The Modern Slavery Bill 2018 is a vital milestone in our response to this crime. It will shine a light into the dark corners of global supply chains and transform the way businesses respond to modern slavery. Today we've heard a range of suggestions in relation to potential amendments to this bill, including removing forced marriage from the definition of modern slavery; introducing a punitive penalty regime; requiring annual reporting to parliament, including a list of all reporting entities; and establishing an antislavery commissioner. The government is confident that the bill is appropriate for the Australian context in its current form and does not require amendment in the House. The government has carefully crafted this bill through a 10-month consultation process to ensure that it is practical, sensible and effective, and those consultations were indeed extensive. There were meetings with over 170 business and civil society experts across 16 roundtable meetings, as well as over 70 direct meetings. During those extensive consultations, the government worked closely with business and civil society to consider the issues of relevance to this bill. We also thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its inquiry into the bill, and the government is carefully considering the five recommendations made by that Senate committee.

In conclusion, the importance of this bill must not be understated. This is a matter of great importance. The business community and broader civil society both support government taking action on this issue, and this bill will be a powerful catalyst for change. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hotham has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment, as moved by the member for Hotham, be agreed to.