Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

I greatly admire Senator Sheldon's passion and advocacy in this area; however, there are some important points to note here. This is not just a question of business being expected to address, especially, offshore modern slavery. There are real practical issues in terms of business considering these issues and taking steps. The best approach is a team approach between government and business. In response to Senator Sheldon's comments, I want to read from a paper from the NSW Anti-slavery Commissioner, Dr James Cockayne, who gave some extremely good evidence to our inquiry in relation to modern antislavery measures. He spoke about the People's Republic of China's response in relation to Western companies trying to deal with the issue of modern slavery within Xinjiang. This is how the People's Republic of China has responded, in the words of Dr James Cockayne:

Western efforts to call out human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and to regulate supply-chains passing through Xinjiang, have been met by a furious backlash from Beijing, with many components: a full-court media and diplomatic push, describing the allegation as the "lie of the century"; the adoption of an Anti-Sanctions Law that criminalizes—

Just reflect on this: 'criminalises'—

cooperation with foreign supply chain due diligence efforts …

So the People's Republic of China has introduced a law which would criminalise a company based in the People's Republic of China cooperating with a Western company, a company in Australia or a company in the United States, trying to carry out due diligence in relation to supply chains. Third:

harassment and intimidation of auditors and raids on auditing firms …

That is, firms trying to carry out the due diligence, which legislative regimes like this require, being raided. Fourth:

government-stoked online vitriol against campaigners, including several leading Australian researchers …

Fifth:

organised government boycotts and administrative harassment of Western retail brands operating in China, including major players such as H&M, Walmart and Intel.

These are the practical issues facing Australian businesses when they are seeking to undertake due diligence with respect to modern slavery issues in Xinjiang within the People's Republic of China. These are real issues. This is not just a question of business being held to account, as it should be held to account, with respect to this issue. It needs support from government, because there is very strong pushback from certain international players who don't like it when companies outside their jurisdiction undertake due diligence with respect to these issues. So this issue needs to be considered in that context.

Firstly I would like to sincerely acknowledge the work of the Attorney-General's Department with respect to this legislation. I think the effort that they've put into the legislation and also their cooperation with the inquiry was first class. The staff of the department should be complimented on that. I would also like to thank all the witnesses, especially from non-government organisations, who participated in the inquiry, including Dr James Cockayne, the New South Wales Anti-slavery Commissioner, who gave very good evidence. Also I want to acknowledge victims-survivors of modern slavery, who need to be kept at the centre of these reforms.

I am very pleased that the government has adopted amendments to this legislation. I genuinely believe it improves the legislation and I commend the government for introducing amendments to the legislation. I will speak in relation to one of those amendments shortly.

The coalition's record with respect to anti modern slavery measures should be considered, especially given the comments of Senator Sheldon. It was a coalition government that first introduced slavery offences into Australia's Criminal Code in 1999. It was a coalition government that in 2018 passed Australia's Modern Slavery Act. We are building on that act today through this legislation. It was a coalition government that first introduced the Modern Slavery Act which is being amended today. That needs to be recognised as well. That act shone a bright light on slavery risks in international supply chains. Lastly, it was a coalition government that developed the national action plan to combat human trafficking and slavery from 2015 to 2019 and the subsequent plan between 2020 and 2025.

If you want an international perspective with respect to the quality of our laws in this space compared with those of our international partners, you can do no better than refer to the comments of Mr Hyland, who gave evidence to our inquiry. He was the first modern antislavery commissioner in the world, appointed under the government of the United Kingdom. This is what he said about our laws: 'Currently, Australia is leading in creating transparency of modern slavery in supply chains.' So we're coming from a pretty strong base, a pretty strong foundation, which builds on the work of both sides of politics, and I think that should be generally recognised. For me, this is not a partisan issue. This should be dealt with on a non-partisan basis because I think we're all interested in making sure that people aren't the victims of modern slavery within our borders or outside of our borders.

Mr Hyland's comments were provided in response to a question on notice I put to him with respect to my deep concern about the definition of 'sensitive information' in the bill and how that would operate to potentially prevent the modern Anti-Slavery Commissioner from being able to discuss issues of great importance with respect to modern slavery in international jurisdictions. The concern there was that the original definition talked about the modern Anti-Slavery Commissioner not being able to include in the annual report or the strategic plan anything which 'would or might prejudice international relations'. I was deeply concerned that the operation of that definition would mean that issues such as those occurring in Xinjiang could simply not be included in an annual report or a strategic plan due to the pushback from the People's Republic of China. However, an amendment has been made to that definition of 'sensitive information'. It is a very good amendment, and I'm very pleased that that amendment has been made because I think it genuinely enhances the legislation.

I want to make some comments with respect to the position in Xinjiang, and these are included in my additional comments in the committee report:

On 31 August 2022, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights … issued: OHCHR assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.

This is what they found:

In summary, there are indications that labour and employment schemes … appear to be discriminatory in nature or effect and to involve elements of coercion, requiring transparent clarification by Government.

Serious human rights violations have been committed in XUAR—

the Xinjiang region—

in the context of the Government's application of counter-terrorism and counter extremism strategies. The implementation of these strategies, and associated policies in XUAR has led to interlocking patterns of severe and undue restrictions on a wide range of human rights. These patterns of restrictions are characterised by a discriminatory component, as the underlying acts often directly or indirectly affect Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities.

Similarly, there are indications that labour and employment schemes for purported purposes of poverty alleviation and prevention of 'extremism' … may involve elements of coercion and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds.

The recommendation to the business community was this:

… that it …

Takes all possible measures to meet the responsibility to respect human rights across activities and business relationships … including through enhanced human rights due diligence, and report on this transparently.

How did the People's Republic of China respond to that conclusion by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights? This is what they said:

… Based on the disinformation and lies fabricated from anti-China forces and out of presumption of guilt, the so-called 'assessment' distorts China's laws and policies, wantonly smears and slanders China, and interferes in China's internal affairs …

It's in that context that we're dealing with the issue of modern slavery in overseas jurisdictions, where some of those jurisdictions push back hard and, as Dr James Cockayne said, use things such as media, diplomacy and an anti-sanctions law adopted in the People's Republic of China that 'criminalises cooperation with foreign supply chain due diligence' ealing with this issue requires moral courage on the part of not only businesses but also government, and it requires cooperation between business and government. Business cannot be expected to deal with these issues alone, especially when dealing with certain overseas jurisdictions. They require the support of government, which is one of the reasons why I'm very pleased with the amendments which are being made to this legislation.

Lastly, I want to return to one of the introductory points I made, and that is that victims-survivors of modern slavery must be kept central in our consideration of these matters. They must be at the centre of everything we do in this place in relation to these issues. When we're considering legislation in this space, we need to consider how the legislation will impact on victims-survivors. Again, there are some very pleasing amendments which are being made to the bill in that regard, including requiring the commissioner to engage with victims of modern slavery to 'inform and support' them with respect to the performance of the functions and including a principal objective in the strategic plan which sets out the objectives of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner to make 'guidance material publicly available to support victims of modern slavery'. That is welcome. It's about keeping the victims-survivors of modern slavery at the centre of our consideration of these matters.

In continuing that theme, I want to end my contribution—I probably should have started and ended my contribution with this, but at least I'll end with it—by paying tribute to one of those victims-survivors, Mr Moe Turaga, who actually appeared before the committee and gave evidence to the committee. He is a survivor and now a consultant in relation to these matters. After being a victim-survivor, he has now become an advocate, helping other people in this situation, and also a consultant. He appeared with the Australian Catholic Anti-Slavery Network, and I compliment them on their work in this space. I want to end my contribution with his words, the words of a victim-survivor:

My strongest advice is for an explicit commitment in the bill to put survivors and our concerns at the centre of the commissioner's work.

I believe the amendments made to the bill do that, and I would like to sincerely thank Mr Moe Turaga for his advocacy, for his testimony and for all the work he does in the space. Similarly, I compliment various outstanding non-government organisations on all the work they are also doing in this space to try our best to eliminate modern slavery in Australia's supply chains.