Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] As a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021. The purpose of the original bill was to ban the importation of goods from Xinjiang, in the People's Republic of China, as well as goods from other parts of the PRC that are produced in whole or part by forced labour. I, like other speakers, am pleased that Senator Patrick has expanded the scope of the bill with the insertion of section 50A, 'Prohibition of the importation of goods—goods produced by forced labour', within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

I associate myself with the comments that have been made by Senator Abetz but I focus my comments this morning on the work of the report and the work that the committee did on this report, particularly in relation to the massive and systemic oppression of the Uighur people by the Chinese government. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that the use of forced labour is defined in the bill by reference to the Criminal Code. The explanatory memorandum states:

The importation into Australia of any goods found to have been produced by forced labour, will be subject to the penalties that apply to the importation of other goods designated as prohibited imports by regulations made under the Customs Act.

The Bill supports Australia's longstanding commitment to internationally recognised human rights to freedom from slavery and forced labour such as in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and related international conventions against slavery and forced labour.

I acknowledge and thank Senator Patrick for the work that he has done and thank him for bringing forward this bill.

This is a critical time in the world's dealings with the communist regime in Beijing and, accordingly, this bill is very timely. Apart from the evidence given by the usual apologists for Beijing, the remainder of the evidence to the committee was very compelling. This is an issue of concern to many Australians, especially given the evidence provided by the president of the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association that every single Uighur in Australia has family members and/or friends in the concentration and/or labour camps.

Many respondents pointed to the research of Dr Adrian Zenz, including his work indicating that there are as many as 1.8 million Uighurs and other ethnic groups currently subjected to forced labour in the PRC. Dr Darren Byler, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Colorado, told the committee about his research based on interviews with former Xinjiang workers and immediate family members of workers. He states:

… what I've learned from them through those interviews and through comparison to open-and-closed access Chinese government documents, such as internal police documents, is that a system of unfree labour is now widespread in Xinjiang and, to a certain extent, across China. In factories and other institutions, the workers are taught to speak Mandarin and embrace state political ideology, all while learning to work on an assembly line or as maintenance workers, cleaners, nannies and cooks in state-directed labour programs. Though some of these new workers referred to as 'surplus' labourers were simply farmers from nearby villages, many of them are also relatives of detainees or former detainees themselves. All of them know that overt refusal of these job assignments could result in their internment in camps or imprisonment.

The World Uyghur Congress noted that forced labour tended to take place in or around internment camps, prisons and workplaces inside East Turkestan as well as across China. Various submitters to our committee referred to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute report of March 2020 Uyghurs for sale: Re-education, forced labour and surveillance beyond Xinjiang by Vicky Xiuzhong Xu, Danielle Cave, Dr James Leibold, Kelsey Munro and Nathan Ruser. Other speakers have referred to some of the contents of that report, which identified 27 factories in nine Chinese provinces using Uighur forced labour, transferred from Xinjiang, since 2017.

These factories are part of the supply chain for 82 well-known global brands in the technology, clothing and automotive sector. Of note, the report estimated the transfer of more than 80,000 Uighurs and other ethnic minorities from Xinjiang to factories across the country, between 2017 and 2019, through labour transfer programs under a central government policy known as Xinjiang Aid. ASPI also maintains the Xinjiang Data Project website, which brings together research on the human rights situation of Uighurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. Furthermore—and I note that this has also been referred to—one of those companies, Chinese rail manufacturer KTK, works with a number of governments in Australia, including the New South Wales government and the Victorian government, and is being investigated for its links to forced labour.

Witnesses provided troubling evidence of PRC government intimidation in response to the publication of research in this area. Professor Leibold and Ms Munro said that the report had been repeatedly criticised by the Chinese government, seeking to besmirch ASPI as an organisation and its researchers, who have been repeatedly doxxed and threatened, and ignoring the substance of the report and the specifics of the evidence. Doxxing, I understand, is the practice of releasing a person's private information on the internet. Ms Xu informed the committee that the PRC had threatened to sue ASPI for libel, following the publication of the report. We also know that there have been incentives offered to companies to incorporate Uighur workers into their business. They reported that the government subsidies include free land, lower electricity costs, low-cost loans, transportation subsidies and even subsidised labour.

Evidence by Professor James Leibold should sound a salutatory warning. The two-way trade between Xinjiang and Australia is increasingly significant and should be of serious concern to our parliament. The customs bureau of the Xinjiang regional government releases monthly statistics on the import and export of products between Xinjiang and other countries. According to Professor Leibold's evidence, Australia is—much to my surprise—one of the regime's top trading partners. Over the four years of the brutal crackdown in Xinjiang, Australia's two-way trade with Xinjiang increased by 150 per cent. The vast majority of that trade, about 73 per cent, is the import of goods from Xinjiang into Australia, with imports increasing by 150 per cent in 2009 and amounting to $37 million. By comparison, in 2019, neither Canada nor the UK was among Xinjiang's top 30 trading partners. Germany and Japan imported far less. In fact, in 2019 Australia's imports from Xinjiang actually exceeded that of the United States and comprised about two per cent of Xinjiang's total exports.

Our report canvassed legislative responses by other governments, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. On the private-sector front, Be Slavery Free noted that the Better Cotton Initiative, a global not-for-profit organisation and the largest cotton sustainability program in the world, has suspended its activities in Xinjiang on the back of concerns over the prevalence of labour abuses in the area. BSF also noted actions taken by Woolworths, Kathmandu and PDH brands, as outlined in their modern slavery statements. Indeed, Woolworths commenced tracing its garment supply chain, and Kathmandu noted that the risk of exposure to forced labour was potentially present at all levels of the supply chain.

In relation to the issue with Beijing, the report indicated that there is widespread support for this bill. I think that is not surprising given the change in sentiment that is fast becoming the norm—that it can no longer the business as usual with the communist regime in China. The ongoing threats by Beijing are symptomatic of the predicament that we find ourselves in, noting that years of questionable and, if I may say so, defective foreign and trade policy have made us vulnerable to economic coercion. Those who have responsibility for our 'fellow traveller' foreign policy were prepared to ignore communist China's skulduggery so long as the rivers of gold continued to flow. Businesses also engaged in extensive trade because the rivers of gold were flowing. This has proved to be a flawed business model, and if we profess to have a values based foreign policy then that includes standing up on issues such as abuse of human rights.

Whilst China's bully tactics on different fronts were clear, there was a reluctance to offend China on the part of those leading our foreign and trade policy, and my criticisms in January 2018, though valid, were not welcome. We were never clear what strategy we were adopting with China. Therefore, when you are dealing with a bully, it is important that you have the political fortitude to stand up to them. As I've said, I think that the Australian public will now expect that. Australians will no longer tolerate business as usual with the communist regime. China is not a democracy. It is a totalitarian regime, and we need to treat it as such. I won't go into the statistics in relation to our mounting trade. Suffice it to say that having put a third of our trade eggs in the China basket has opened us up to criticism on a range of fronts, especially now that we are seeing the emerging evidence about some of those goods potentially being linked to forced labour in Xinjiang, and potentially in other places.

I am pleased the committee endorses without reservation the objectives of the bill, as I've indicated, in relation to state-sponsored forced labour in relation to Uighurs and, of course, in other parts the world. I agree that it is incumbent upon the government to take steps to ensure that Australian businesses and consumers are not in any way complicit in these egregious abuses. Our report made it clear that it is important that we prohibit the import of any goods made wholly or in part with forced labour, regardless of geographic origin. It is important, as part of any process in relation to forced labour, that we audit supply chains and ensure that the exposure of Australian businesses to these practices is fully audited and also that Australian businesses and importers are given clarity in relation to the procedures.

In conclusion, I note that the government supports the intent of this bill and acknowledges the importance of this issue, including the need for transparency and appropriate action in response to the instances of modern slavery and human rights abuses. Senator Patrick indicated that this bill is a blunt instrument, but I would urge the government to accept all the recommendations of the report. I note that there are deficiencies in the Modern Slavery Act, and some of those have been discussed this morning. In its efforts to combat modern slavery, the government has taken a country-agnostic, victim centred approach that focuses on supporting the best outcomes for victims in addressing modern slavery in supply chains, and I think that those changes do need to be made. The evidence of widespread use of forced labour for particular classes of product from different parts of the world, and most especially from Xinjiang, necessitates action on this complex issue as a matter of priority.