Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

To continue with my contribution to the debate on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023, the review, led by Professor John McMillan, was completed last year. The Human Rights Law Centre, in its submission to that review, said:

Compliance with the mandatory reporting criteria remains patchy … the quality of reporting … remains poor … many companies are still not identifying obvious modern slavery risks in their supply chains or taking meaningful action to address them.

Professor McMillan said, in his final report:

A widely endorsed view in the consultations for this review is that there is no hard evidence that the Modern Slavery Act … has yet caused meaningful change for people living in conditions of modern slavery.

In Australia, temporary migrants are also particularly vulnerable to modern slavery. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has pointed out that the drivers of exploitation include insecurity due to temporary visa status and visa arrangements that tie workers to their employers.

Through the Senate Select Committee on Job Security in the last parliament, I heard firsthand from temporary migrants who had been subjected to slavery or slavery-like conditions. Kate, an agricultural worker from Taiwan, told us about how she took a job picking oranges for $25 per bucket. When she arrived on the farm, she was told that a bucket is 800 kilograms worth of oranges. She said, 'There's no room for negotiation.' She went on to say:

I was very afraid of getting issues when I needed to renew my visa. I was afraid that reporting my condition and making a complaint to the government would risk my new visa application.

We also heard from a number of workers from Vanuatu and Samoa, who courageously told us about their exploitation on farms in Victoria and Queensland. They were earning as little as $2.50 an hour while living in slum conditions leased to them by the labour hire company at an exorbitant rate. These workers were people such are Sergio, a Vanuatuan man. He'd come here to pick grapes. He told us, 'I came here to work for money. I did not come here as a slave.'

Of course, we heard from highly respected Australian missionaries Geoff and Jane Smith, who are charity workers in Bundaberg. Their home was subject to a dawn raid by nine Australian Border Force troopers because they were suspected of aiding migrant workers who had fled from slavelike conditions. As Jane told the inquiry, 'I was in bed asleep and I heard a shuffle past my bedroom window. Next minute, I get up and all these police are in my house and they said, "We've come here to raid your house."' At the same time, the former minister for home affairs, Mr Dutton—now the opposition leader—was plastering farming regions with posters warning workers that if they absconded they would be deported and bring shame on their families.

While Mr Dutton was threatening these workers with deportation, 45 workers on the Pacific Labour Mobility Scheme died at work, many of whom had visas tied directly to their employer, meaning they had no way of leaving an unsafe or deadly work environment. That's the system of those opposite—a protection racket for the very worst employers in our country.

This is a very serious matter we're considering today. We've already made urgent changes to our workplace laws to make it illegal for businesses to threaten their employees on the basis of their visa status. We've amended migration laws to introduce new visa protections for migrants exploited at work. We've decriminalised undocumented work by migrant workers and established criminal offences for employers who exploit workers. Where Mr Dutton threatened people escaping slavery with deportation and shame, we are making it safer and easier for people to come forward.

This bill and the review of the Modern Slavery Act are in addition to the changes we have already made to our workplace and migration laws. The McMillan review of the act made 30 recommendations, which the government is in the process of responding to. Several of the recommendations relate to the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, which the bill establishes. The commissioner will have functions, including to engage and support victims and survivors of modern slavery, to promote compliance with the Modern Slavery Act and to support businesses to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains.

We've been calling for an antislavery commissioner since 2017, so this is an important step forward. It should be viewed in the context of the work that is being done, and is ongoing, in the review of the act and in migration and workplace laws more generally. It's also clear that more needs to be done. As a broad range of groups have noted, the existing Modern Slavery Act has failed. As the ACTU said in its submission to the review of the act:

… the primary measure of the impact of the MSA must be whether it is working to eliminate modern slavery … On this measure, it is clear the MSA is not succeeding.

The 'transparency framework' approach of the MSA is not an effective strategy for addressing modern slavery. It is based on the flawed assumption that reporting alone will improve business practices—

and as they—

compete for funding and consumer support … 'businesses that fail to take action will be penalised by the market' …

Oh, my God, that's out of date, isn't it?

Leaving things up to the market to take care of has rarely, if ever, actually worked. What a ludicrous way to approach a serious issue—where the slave owners and those profiteering from slavery are actually going to turn around and self-regulate. What a novel approach.

A review by the Human Rights Law Centre, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, Baptist World Aid, the UNSW Human Rights Institute, the University of Western Australia and the University of Notre Dame looked at how this transparency framework was working. They reviewed the modern slavery statements of 102 companies in high-risk sectors, including companies supplying garments sourced from China, rubber gloves sourced from Malaysia, seafood from Thailand and horticulture in Australia, and found that less than half actually identified and disclosed modern slavery risks. For example, three in four companies sourcing garments from China failed to mention the risk of Uighur forced labour in their supply chains. That is an extraordinary failure.

Even taking ASX 200 companies, who should be best placed and resourced to enact the previous government's approach, a 2021 review found that a third of ASX 200 companies' modern slavery statements were noncompliant with the act. How's that for market forces when even the highest profile public companies in the country are thumbing the nose? If a third of the biggest public companies in Australia aren't compliant, what hope do we have for everyone else? It's clear that the act is not being taken seriously in the absence of real legal obligations, real penalties for noncompliance and real enforcement mechanisms. But that was the whole point of the previous government's approach to modern slavery: to give the appearance of taking it seriously while allowing slavers to profiteer. That's why the McMillan review called for the establishment of due diligence obligations for businesses and for penalties for noncompliance.

I look forward to the Attorney-General's response to this review, noting his long-held concerns about the inadequacy of the act as it is currently drafted. I also note that a wide range of stakeholders and submissions on the bill call for the commissioner to also be equipped with investigative and enforcement powers. As the Human Rights Law Centre said in its submission:

… it is critical that the Commissioner be empowered to help monitor and enforce compliance with the Act … receive and handle complaints and undertake investigations regarding suspected instances of modern slavery.

The McMillan review also recommended new powers to support compliance with the act, and this should also be considered as part of the government's response. I note that the government's amendments to this bill, arriving from the Senate inquiry, clarify that the commissioner is able to refer matters for investigation to relevant agencies, including law enforcement agencies.

Finally, I want to express disappointment at the views expressed by some business groups on the review of the Modern Slavery Act. Slavery exists at the extreme end of the spectrum of workplace exploitation. This government has made sweeping, substantial changes to grow wages, improve job security and eliminate exploitation at work. At every juncture, groups like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have opposed those reforms. The chamber of commerce made similar comments to the modern slavery review, saying:

Significant cultural change is needed … to recognise this as an issue for many businesses … Forced efforts will drive forced behaviours …

… a more compliance driven approach will drive compliance based, blinkered approaches …

That's a bit of a clanger, isn't it? The chamber of commerce is telling victims of slavery that they should just wait and hope that businesses will do the right thing. I think it's time to hold businesses to account for slavery in their supply chains, and this bill is an important step forward.