Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, please take this seriously. Surely this is a new low, even for those opposite. At a time when the primary concern of this government is ensuring that as many Australians as possible are supported as we emerge from a global pandemic, the opposition can't resist making a petty political point, a point dripping with self-interest on an issue that should be above party politics and factional interests.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Keneally, please. The fact remains—

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Keneally, I didn't interrupt you. The fact remains that ending modern slavery is an extremely noble and worthwhile goal and one that we should all be committed to. The Modern Slavery Act will hold large businesses to account and ensure they work earnestly to mitigate the risk of modern slavery within their supply chains. The act is the strongest legislation of its kind in the world. The act sets clear, mandatory criteria that businesses must meet. It creates a central register to house statements on modern slavery and even requires the government itself to report on modern slavery risks in procurement.

The Australian government has a strong and effective national response to modern slavery and human trafficking. There are a set of powerful criminal offences, with up to 25 years imprisonment, available as a punishment, as well as specialist investigative teams working within the Australian Federal Police. The government works extremely hard to ensure that Australia's Modern Slavery Act is world leading and drives businesses into a race to the top. Reporting requirements and the risk to brand reputation mean it is in the best interests of businesses to comprehensively deal with even the suggestion of slavish exploitation within their supply chains. Good supply-chain management and ethically sourcing products are big winners in the modern marketplace. One need only look at McDonald's talking up their ethical sourcing of coffee to see that this is a path that big corporates are keen to take. And consumers support it, meaning it is as much a good business decision as a moral one.

Let's not pretend that anything about this legislation was rushed or that extensive consultation wasn't carried out. Consultation included a detailed public discussion paper, released in August 2017; roundtables, with representatives across the spectrum, held in September and October 2017; more than 50 meetings with stakeholders; and almost 100 written submissions. To put it bluntly, this was an extensive process that sought as much feedback and input as possible. The government have also released guidance on reducing the risk of modern slavery within the context of our COVID-19 response.

The call to action around this initiative is one which unites all parts of society, yet those opposite seek to criticise and divide on this very issue. Public nominations for the expert advisory group to assist with the implementation of the act were sought in February this year. The group is a diverse one, made up of business and academic figures as well as the previous chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Chris Crewther, who is incredibly well qualified and has the experience to be in this group. Chris led from the start on this issue and chaired the parliamentary inquiry into the drafting of the legislation. Independent experts and people with pragmatic experience in this field, like those on the advisory group, are the people best placed to guide the application of the legislation, to reliably identify and remedy problems within supply chains and to remain true to the spirit and objectives of the act. It makes sense to combine the best theoretical and academic minds on the subject with best practice from industry. This is what the exceptional appointees to the expert advisory group bring to the table. This is the best path forward to ensure that trends and practices in this area are monitored and our responses stay ahead of attempts to disguise this wicked practice.

To me, it is ludicrous to suggest that a union representative would somehow make any positive difference to this group, which is intended to be non-political and seeks to match the best industry leaders with leading academics with experience in and understanding of the field. Unions have a chequered history when it comes to protecting workers, often placing their own interests first. You need only look at Bill Shorten's time as AWU secretary—ask the workers.