John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose the Modern Slavery Bill 2018. I suspect the Liberal Democrats will be the only party opposing this bill. It is not because the Liberal Democrats are evil, even though those in politics, the media and the public who are fond of caricature and incapable of nuance would have you think so. We oppose the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 because it will do no good and at the same time it will do real harm. The bill does no good because Australian criminal law already prohibits modern slavery in Australia and abroad. Australian police already enforce these laws within their powers and Australian governments already provide services to victims. I'm sure those keen to show how virtuous they are would like to be able to ban evil things twice, but, alas, this is not possible.

What this bill actually does is impose reporting requirements on around 3,000 organisations in Australia. These reporting requirements will cost each organisation, on average, around $22,000 a year. This is a $66 million annual burden, where the $66 million would otherwise be spent on useful things. Imposing this reporting requirement makes us all a little bit poorer, and for what? Can anyone imagine a scenario where a reporting requirement stops some modern slavery?

Organisations are being asked to prepare reports on risks of modern slavery in their supply chains. Modern slavery is not simply about workers in chains or even just servitude and forced labour, but includes debt bondage, forced marriage and human trafficking. No-one would disagree with the desire to ensure none of these were occurring, but, if there is any modern slavery in an organisation's supply chain in Australia, someone is guilty of a serious criminal offence. These things are crimes. I can't see how the organisation will confess to this to the police by writing it up in a report. Even if there were no fear of criminal prosecution, what organisation will ruin its own reputation by reporting that there are risks of modern slavery in its supply chains? This is akin to asking everyday Australians to report to the police whether they have done anything criminal—as if those who had done something criminal would admit to it.

If there is modern slavery in the supply chain overseas, how is a company in Australia to know?

Sure, it can ask, but what credence could be placed on the reply? Can you imagine an overseas supplier telling their Australian customer: 'Oh, sure. We have slaves working for us'?

Let me pull out my crystal ball and give you a glimpse of the future. Each of the 3,000 organisations will say they oppose modern slavery and are diligently ensuring that any risk of modern slavery is being addressed in their supply chains. There will be no scrutiny of the reports, noting that today's bill provides for no scrutiny whatsoever. There will be no hot leads for our police to pursue. No behaviours will change, and 3,000 reports will gather dust. What a complete waste of time. But what an invitation to future governments to make it compulsory to report, as Labor already wants to do, to make it illegal to buy from suppliers until they report and to get certified at significant cost, of course, with some NGO providing the certification and clipping the ticket. That's no fantasy either: we've already got that with the importation of timber.

The world has gone mad, falling over itself to demonstrate its virtue. It might be fashionable to support this modern slavery bill, but fashion has obviously never been my concern. The Liberal Democrats do the right thing, and the right thing here is to oppose this pointless bill.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 and the committee stages of it, I want to note what a big step forward we are taking as a country in addressing modern slavery, not only in Australia but very much in our global supply chains. We often think of slavery as something of the past and, for most people in Australia, the transatlantic slave trade will come to mind; however, we have our own history of slavery in Australia, including in our convict times and with our First Nations people. We consider slavery as a relic of a much less enlightened time, but, indeed, we have more slaves in the world now than we have ever had in history. Some 48.5 million people are living in slavery-like conditions. They exist in a wide variety of private sector activities such as manufacturing, construction and agriculture.

In considering the bill before us today and the amendments that will be moved by the opposition and others, it's important to consider that this bill needs to be the best it possibly can be. We have in Australia a strong rule of law and we should expect that it prevents horrific exploitation of workers, but, sadly, the opposite is true. We live in an interconnected globalised society. We have everyday items that are sold and produced by businesses operating in Australia that can be, and have been seen to be, tainted by slavery and complex supply chains that increase the chance that slavery has been used to produce the goods that Australians use every day.

Despite the best efforts of Australians, it can be very difficult to determine whether slavery has been used to produce certain goods in our supply chain as well as the clandestine nature of the slave trade. In our own region, we know that two-thirds of people who are known globally to be trapped in slavery are in the Asia-Pacific region. This is a region we're intrinsically linked with. Not only that; it is estimated that some 4,500 people in Australia are trapped in slavery-like conditions, and we have seen recent examples of that. While it's obviously illegal, we need to find and stamp out this behaviour and we need to find the evidence of it. The exploitative situation that people find themselves in when they are in slavery-like conditions means people can be very difficult to find. It's multiple abuses of power that cause people to be made vulnerable in this way.

Labor have championed the Modern Slavery Bill, but we would also like to see strengthening of this policy. We'd like, for example, to see companies earning over $100 million required to submit annual reports outlining their actions to address modern slavery, rather than the lack of transparency around that currently. It needs to be public so that we know which organisations and companies have an obligation.

Senator Reynolds has used the committee report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to good effect in addressing some of these issues. It was a pleasure to work with Senator Macdonald in prosecuting some of these issues, and it's good to see those issues responded to. From the opposition's point of view, though, they don't go far enough. For example, we see that the Modern Slavery Business Engagement Unit will be established within the Department of Home Affairs—and the government responded to our committee recommendations by beefing that up somewhat—but the Labor Party had wanted to see, and is still committed to, an independent antislavery commissioner.

We want to be able to see independent oversight of things like the public list of companies, in order to ensure that there's transparency and accountability. We want the public to know what companies are doing to help stamp out slavery in their supply chains, and we believe that citizens should be actively involved in being able to exert pressure on companies that fail to meet these expectations. The Australian public have no appetite for slavery and want to see support for companies that take measures to ensure an ethical supply chain. This is about transparency, and it is also about the Australian government giving companies a platform so that we can look at the supply chain and ensure transparency. That would give consumers a choice in Australia.

We very much support this bill and commend the government for moving to address this issue, but we do wish that it had gone further, and we want to express our concerns with some of the elements of the proposed bill. We are concerned about the lack of penalties—that there is no incentive for companies to actually comply, short of public scrutiny. We have been through the sentiments of the opt-in system, but this bill does little to enforce compliance. We would propose penalties for noncompliance, civil penalties for failing to report within an immediate start date and a penalty provision for submitting an inadequate report.

We're not going to pursue amendments, even though we will put them. We know that, while many stakeholders would like to see amendments succeed to the end that I've expressed, it's been sad that the government hasn't been able to accept that these things should be in the bill, which has left us in the situation where, unfortunately, the optimum situation in order to not threaten the bill is to ensure that it passes without amendment. I think that's a shame. I think that's a big shame. If you were to play up the stakes on these things and the government were to say, 'Well, if you pass this amendment then we have to reject the bill,' that would be a great shame, because there was overwhelming support from stakeholders for some of these changes. Nevertheless, it is important that this legislation does progress and will be seen to make a real difference in addressing slavery in the global supply chain as well as here in Australia.

So, we want to see compliance and we want to see enforcement. We do see issues with the Anti-Slavery Business Engagement Unit. The intent is admirable, but we don't want to see a unit that's buried inside the department and is focused on assisting businesses instead of focused on victims. We don't think this is sufficient for tackling the issues of slavery in Australia or globally. That is why we supported an independent slavery commissioner and the idea that setting up a commissioner should be seen as a way of bringing about real and further change in this area. We want to see a commissioner who can work with the victims of slavery, receive inquiries and complaints, work with businesses to develop best practices to protect their supply chains and work with civil society to help prevent and detect slavery. This is a lot more than just a business engagement unit.

Finally, we think it's important to remove forced marriage from the reporting requirements and, instead, match Labor's forced-marriage policy. We have a comprehensive plan and approach to tackling the issue of forced marriage, and we don't think this has a place within the Modern Slavery Bill. It's a very serious issue that must be addressed, but it has different elements that also have much in common with domestic violence and other forms of forced servitude in Australia, not just slavery. Other concerns with this bill have been raised by community groups, business leaders and members of the public, including the need to lower the threshold for companies from $100 million down to $50 million in line with legislation in the UK and New South Wales, and also ideas have been put forward about the National Compensation Scheme to assist victims of trafficking and human slavery.

While all these things that I've raised are important, the Labor Party believes that the current bill is a very important step forward. We would like to see it amended, but we appreciate the fact that we are, frankly, wedged. It is high time we saw this legislation passed and done so that the nation can get on with implementing these reforms. I was pleased to see a commitment to review these provisions, and that is in the legislation. That is an important outcome from the work we did as a Senate committee. If the Labor Party doesn't immediately come to government after the next election, whereby we can implement these things ourselves, the review process allows us to ensure that, in time, the issues that I've outlined in my remarks this evening are indeed addressed.

Slavery is an absolutely horrendous act that has no place in modern life, and the Labor Party is committed to stamping it out in this country and overseas. We support the strong premise of this bill but call on the government to support the amendments we have proposed. I'm saddened that we seem to have been in a place where amendments won't get support simply because that would jeopardise the progress of the bill. Nevertheless, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Centre Alliance supports this bill as a much-needed first step towards tackling the issues of modern slavery in business supply chains. According to the 2018 Global Slavery Index, over $10 billion worth of goods imported each year into Australia may have been produced under conditions of slave labour—$10 billion. Amongst the highest-risk goods are those found in every Australian household and workplace, such as clothing, mobile phones and computers. That is billions of dollars spent by our nation to reward the reprehensible scum who feed off this evil and insidious trade in human lives.

Although it is less prevalent here than in some overseas countries, we must also not forget that, to our greatest shame, Australia is not immune from modern slavery, with an estimated 15,000 people on any given day trapped in this misery. Sit down with any Australian and ask if they would knowingly prefer to buy something—say a pair of shoes—which has been made through slave labour, shoes that have been made by a human being just like them except that, instead of being free to live their life, that person is forced through deception, through threats of violence or because they are a defenceless child, to work endless hours per day in unbearable and unsafe conditions for little or no pay and with little hope of escape. Ask any Australian, and the answer is always a resounding no. Ask any ordinary Australian if they would be happy for their taxes to be spent supporting this immoral conduct—again, a resounding no. So how is it possible that, as a nation that prides itself on fairness and compassion, we are potentially paying billions of dollars per year perpetuating slavery?

A major part of this problem is that we do this because we don't know about it, and we don't know about it because modern slavery is hidden. Take, for example, one of our biggest spenders of public money: Defence. Four years ago, Australian-owned Rossi Boots lost out on a $15 million contract to supply boots to the Australian Defence Force. Rossi Boots is based in South Australia and has manufactured footwear in my home state since 1910. Its employees are paid a living wage and they work in regulated and very safe conditions. The Department of Defence chose instead to award the tender for these army boots to a company which supplies boots manufactured in Indonesia, a country that has slave labour.

To its credit, Indonesia has made significant progress in the last 25 years towards stopping child labour and has committed to eliminating it completely by 2022. But, at the present time, child labour still exists there. Indonesia is also committed to combating other forms of modern slavery. Nevertheless, it has been estimated that currently more than 1.2 million people in Indonesia live in conditions of modern slavery.

Rossi Boots was reportedly advised that its bid was unsuccessful because of 'value-for-money considerations'. It's a no-brainer that paying workers properly rather than treating them as slaves will result in a product that costs a bit more. So are the boots of our Defence Force personnel tainted with slavery that has been subsidised by the Australian taxpayer? The answer is: I seriously hope not, but we simply don't know, and that is precisely the point of this very important bill.

I join with my colleague Rex Patrick in acknowledging the ongoing contribution of Skye Kakoschke-Moore to tackling this issue through her work, both previously in the Senate and as a special adviser to the International Justice Mission, the world's largest antislavery organisation. I also reiterate that this bill is not perfect, but what it will do is begin to shine a light into the dark and noxious crevices where modern slavery festers.

If passed, this legislation will require entities with substantial market power, specifically the Commonwealth and companies with a turnover greater than $100 million per annum, firstly to turn their mind to the issue of slavery within their supply chains and, secondly, to publicly identify what they are doing to mitigate the risk that slavery is occurring within those supply chains. Accordingly, implementation of the provisions of this bill will start to give some assurance to the public that care is being taken to prevent taxpayer money going to fund unconscionable practices. Its implementation will also enable the public to see exactly what large corporations are doing to identify and expunge this scourge from their businesses and hold to account companies that are not doing the right thing.

In making information about a company's antislavery credentials publicly available, the silence of companies that fail to report will be deafening. I believe that in the near future any such silence will pose a significant reputational risk, so I look forward to this legislation initiating a race to the top by corporate Australia, a race that will see companies not otherwise required to report choosing voluntarily to do so. Indeed, there are already Australian companies doing business by doing the right thing. I want to mention one of them here: Outland Denim. Outland Denim came to worldwide attention when, on her recent trip to Australia, the Duchess of Sussex chose to wear a pair of their jeans. Outland Denim employs women rescued from human trafficking in Cambodia and uses only ethically- and environmentally-sound raw material in their product lines. The company considers transparency to be the key to keeping supply chains above reproach, and prominently lists on the company website the names of their suppliers and information about their practices. Outland Denim is leading the way in terms of ethical supply chains and is a great Australian success story that deserves to be celebrated.

Centre Alliance commends this bill as a much-needed first step, but also retains a number of concerns with the bill. These include the fact that no penalty is imposed for noncompliance with reporting requirements and that the bill makes no provision for listing the names of all companies required to report. That, in particular, is a very important consideration. Such a list would, in our view, provide for greater transparency and accountability in the reporting framework.

In addition, we consider that the failure of the bill to establish an antislavery commissioner is a missed opportunity for ensuring this issue is comprehensively dealt with. As the UK experience has shown, an antislavery commissioner would play an invaluable role in overseeing the operation of the legislation; raising awareness of modern slavery; educating and assisting government agencies and companies with identification; and mitigation of risks of modern slavery in supply chains.

Centre Alliance will be voting for this bill, but we will continue to advocate strongly for measures to be implemented that will ensure it is delivering on its objective, to root out this filthy trade.

Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's hard to believe that, in this day and age, we still need a bill like this. The accounts of slavery and trafficking occurring right here in Australia are surprising and incredibly saddening. Over the last months I have learnt more about our national risk of slavery and trafficking, and I've come to realise that our lucky country isn't so lucky for many people. It has led me to ask two questions: 'What are we doing to ensure this does not happen here?' and, 'Are we doing enough?'

Here's what I've learnt. Australia has assumed a leadership role in the region on modern slavery. With this legislation, we are now poised to lead the world in modern slavery transparency reporting. We have strong criminal legislation that supports a framework for victim witnesses working with law enforcement to prosecute traffickers and slave holders, and a national action plan that lays out the government's domestic and international response to this issue.

However, what I've learnt is that, despite these commendable efforts, Australia's performance against that plan's overarching goals, which are prevention, protection and prosecution, is not as strong as it could be or should be. In fact, I'm very concerned to hear that, since Australia incorporated trafficking in persons offences into our Criminal Code in around 2003, fewer than 400 victims have received assistance from our national support program. Only 21 offenders have been convicted of a slavery-related offence. There is no specifically designated funding for our national action plan.

We know Australia is a primary destination for labour migration in the region, with a growing reliance on temporary migrant workers. Indeed, we have been hearing calls from various quarters to introduce a new visa for migrant farm workers and to increase incentives for backpackers to work on farms. Overwhelming evidence of exploitation has come forward through the modern slavery inquiry and other reports, and we know, from this and from academic research, that migrant workers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and labour trafficking.

It is believed that Australia's risk of modern slavery is real and is likely to be greater than the statistics suggest. I'm concerned that, while we're doing a lot of good, well-intentioned work, we are somehow missing the mark and this is resulting in vulnerable people going without protection and without support and possibly being left to languish in violent and abusive situations right here in our backyard, and the offenders just keep offending.

I have found that the development of Australia's domestic response has been hindered by the perception that opportunities to traffic people into or exploit people within Australia are limited because of our strong migration controls, geographic isolation and high degree of regulation compliance and enforcement. Yet, compared to similar countries—and certainly in comparison with the UK, which has provided the model for our consideration of a modern slavery act—Australia has not committed substantial resources or efforts to bolster the identification of victims. To do so we would need to fund more outreach, more public education and certainly more training of first responders. We also need to ensure that our first responders are funded and supported to vigorously pursue criminals; yet there is only a handful of specialist AFP teams around the country looking into this issue.

I'm concerned that there does not appear to be any kind of independent evaluation and monitoring of the national response and no clear accountability for outcomes under the national action plan. How much more evidence will be required in order for us to constructively critique our own efforts and ask why we aren't finding more victims and prosecuting more traffickers? What impetus is required for us to find the courage to admit that we could and must do better? The consequences of our reluctance to challenge ourselves mean that, notwithstanding this legislation, which will introduce new strategies to engage business in eradicating modern slavery, we are otherwise lagging behind other nations in antislavery work. Without independent oversight, how can we be sure that we are honestly evaluating ourselves? Is it fair and reasonable to expect public servants to be able to effectively scrutinise the activity of their bosses?

The fact is there have been a range of recommendations made to improve our response to this problem. There have been various reviews and planning processes. In 2008 an ANAO review made a range of recommendations, noting that our response lacked a monitoring and evaluation framework to assess whether actions under the national action plan are succeeding in achieving their ultimate goals. It is my understanding that, 10 years later, there is still no monitoring and evaluation framework. The ANAO also recommended the government establish a national estimate, and yet this work has only begun.

It is quite clear that, without intended oversight, government must be monitored to keep the commitments it makes. It was on this basis that I decided to propose an amendment to this bill to establish an independent antislavery adviser, which I was pleased to have senators Hinch and Patrick agree to co-sponsor. I appreciate the significant assistance from Heather Moore of the Salvation Army on this, and on this issue in general. Under that proposal, the adviser would be tasked with supporting the operation of the act, specifically by encouraging best practice in the prevention, detention, investigation and prosecution of modern slavery, and supporting victims.

The UK Modern Slavery Act, on which this bill is modelled, includes an independent antislavery commissioner. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended the creation of an independent statutory officer to support the operation of the act when it concluded an inquiry into this bill in August of this year. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner when it concluded its own detailed inquiry into this issue in December 2017.

So it was with surprise that I learned that the government had an aversion to the idea, given that coalition MPs and senators have consistently voted in favour of including this role. Needless to say, this role also has widespread support among civil society groups, and I am not aware of a single business touched by this bill that is opposed to the idea. Nevertheless, I am an incrementalist at my core. I have made a point of remaining pragmatic in my decision-making in this place and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I was told that, should my amendment have succeeded, as I believe it would have, it would have jeopardised the passage of this bill, as the government would not have brought it back before the other place. That being the case, I agreed not to proceed with introducing my detailed amendment on an independent antislavery adviser. However, today I moved a new second reading amendment that called on the government to appoint an independent antislavery commissioner to support the operation of the Modern Slavery Act. I hope the government will heed that advice in the future. Whilst this is a relatively displeasing situation, I believe that the legislative policy work on the independent antislavery adviser will not be wasted and can be used sometime in the future. Indeed, I note that the act will be reviewed after three years and I hope that an independent antislavery adviser or commissioner will be introduced then if it has not already been.

We have an opportunity to achieve something truly significant here in this chamber this evening. I encourage all to support the passage of this bill so that we as a nation can take another step forward towards ending the blight of modern slavery in our world. Thank you.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments moved to this bill. Senator Griff said he was disappointed that we don't have a list yet. I just wanted to explain to him and to senators in this chamber that that is quite correct, because a list simply does not yet exist. However, the government is working towards a list, which is going to be based on the ATO list of companies with revenue of over $100 million, and that will be the basis for the list moving forward. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (8) on sheet ET100 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 11, page 10 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add:

The Minister may request an explanation from an entity about the entity's failure to comply with a requirement in relation to modern slavery statements, and may also request that the entity undertake remedial action in relation to that requirement. If the entity fails to comply with the request, the Minister may publish information about the failure to comply on the register or elsewhere, including the identity of the entity.

(2) Page 13 (after line 27), at the end of Part 2, add:

16A Explanations for failure to comply etc.

Request for explanation or remedial action

(1) If the Minister is reasonably satisfied that an entity has failed to comply with a requirement under section 13 or 14 (which deal with requirements to give modern slavery statements), the Minister may give a written request to the entity to do either or both of the following:

(a) provide an explanation for the failure to comply within a specified period of 28 days or longer after the request is given;

(b) undertake specified remedial action in relation to that requirement in accordance with the request within a specified period of 28 days or longer after the request is given.

Example: For a request relating to a failure to give a modern slavery statement to the Minister within the period required by section 13, remedial action specified under paragraph (b) of this subsection may be to give a modern slavery statement to the Minister within a further period specified in the request.

(2) The Minister may extend, or further extend, a period specified in a request under subsection (1) by written notice given to the entity. The extension may be given before or after the end of the specified period (or that period as previously extended).

(3) A request under subsection (1) must include a statement of the effect of subsections (2) and (4) to (6).

Publication of information about failure to comply with request

(4) If the Minister is reasonably satisfied that an entity has failed to comply with a request under subsection (1), the Minister may publish the following information on the register, or in any other way the Minister considers appropriate:

(a) the identity of the entity;

(b) if the request relates to the entity's failure to comply with subsection 14(2) (joint modern slavery statements) in relation to a modern slavery statement—the identities of the reporting entities covered by the statement;

(c) the date the request was given, and details of any extension given under subsection (2);

(d) details of the explanation or remedial action requested, and the period or periods specified in the request;

(e) the reasons why the Minister is satisfied that the entity has failed to comply with the request.

(5) An entity fails to comply with a request if, and only if:

(a) no explanation is given in response to the request within the period specified in the request under paragraph (1) (a) (as extended, if at all, under subsection (2)); or

(b) no remedial action is undertaken in response to the request within the period specified in the request under paragraph (1) (b) (as extended, if at all, under subsection (2)).

Review of decisions

(6) Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the Minister's decision under subsection (4) to publish information about an entity's failure to comply with a request under subsection (1).

(3) Clause 19, page 14 (line 22), omit "under section 13 or 14", substitute "for the purposes of compliance with section 13 or 14 (including a statement given in response to a request under section 16A)".

(4) Clause 21, page 16 (line 8), omit paragraph (c), substitute:

(ba) annual reports about the implementation of this Act;

(c) the 3-year review of this Act;

(5) Page 16 (after line 24), after clause 23, insert:

23A Annual reports about implementation

(1) The Minister must cause a report to be prepared for each calendar year (including the year in which this section commences) about the implementation of this Act during the year, including the following (without limitation):

(a) an overview of compliance by entities with this Act during the year;

(b) the identification of best practice modern slavery reporting under this Act during the year.

(2) The report must be:

(a) started as soon as practicable after the end of the calendar year for which it is prepared; and

(b) completed before the end of the calendar year in which it is started.

(3) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the report.

(6) Heading to clause 24, page 16 (line 25), omit the heading, substitute:

24 Three -year review

(7) Clause 24, page 17 (after line 2), after paragraph (1) (a), insert:

(aa) compliance with this Act and any rules over that period; and

(ab) whether additional measures to improve compliance with this Act and any rules are necessary or desirable, such as civil penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of this Act; and

(ac) whether a further review of this Act and any rules should be undertaken, and if so, when; and

(ad) whether it is necessary or desirable to do anything else to improve the operation of this Act and any rules; and

(8) Clause 24, page 17 (line 3), at the end of paragraph (1) (b), add "to implement review recommendations".

The Modern Slavery Bill is a major milestone in Australia's response to modern slavery. As we know, the bill will establish a national modern slavery reporting requirement to hold large businesses accountable for their actions to prevent and address modern slavery. The government is committed to ensuring that the reporting requirement will lead to meaningful and effective change. Today I am pleased to move amendments to the bill to further strengthen the operation of the reporting requirements. I thank senators in this chamber who have worked with me to develop these, and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, chaired by Senator Macdonald, which also made recommendations we are acting on today.

The government's amendments make three key changes to the bill before us. Firstly, the amendments will empower the minister to require suspected non-compliant entities to explain their noncompliance and take remedial action. The minister will also have the power to publicly name entities that do not comply. This ensures that the bill provides an appropriate mechanism to address suspected cases of noncompliance with the reporting requirement over the first three years of its operation.

Secondly, the amendments will explicitly require the three-year review of the reporting requirement to consider if additional compliance mechanisms are required, including civil penalties. The review will also consider the necessity for, and timing of, future reviews. Consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, this will establish a clear pathway to future civil penalties if initial compliance rates are inadequate.

Finally, the amendments will require the minister responsible for the legislation to report annually to the parliament about the implementation of the reporting requirement, including compliance trends. This will ensure the reporting requirement is subject to ongoing monitoring and evaluation by the parliament. The annual reports will also provide an evidence base to inform the three-year review and, as I said, the review will consider if and when future reviews are required, which directly relates to one of the issues Senator McKim had. I and the government believe that these amendments reflect international best practice and will ensure the reporting requirement makes a significant impact in the fight against modern slavery.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be supporting the government's amendments because they improve the Modern Slavery Bill. We should not be leaving it to big business to police themselves on slavery. We're impressed by the genuine passion in the business community, and in the broader Australian community, to fight slavery. We all have a shared commitment to stamping out this practice. But we are worried some companies will not comply with the bill in its current form. The overwhelming majority of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Senate committee, including the Human Rights Law Centre, the Law Council of Australia and Oxfam, called for penalties to be included in the bill. The government's decision to leave penalties out of the bill was profoundly disappointing.

This amendment provides that the minister can request an explanation from an entity that has failed to comply with its reporting requirement. If that entity doesn't explain, then the minister can publish the identity of that entity. This is better than no response, but it is far, far weaker than the Labor proposed penalty regime. The government is also proposing to introduce the requirement for the minister to report annually about the operation of the act. This is not as strong as Labor's proposed report by the minister, but it is an improvement on the original bill, so the opposition will also support this amendment. We are also supporting the introduction of the three-year review.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8549 together:

(1) Clause 4, page 4 (line 15), after "Criminal Code", insert ", other than an offence against section 270.7B of the Criminal Code (forced marriage offences)".

(2) Clause 4, page 4 (line 17), after "Divisions", insert "(other than an offence against section 270.7B)".

These amendments would remove forced marriage from the reporting requirements which would be established by this bill. The reason we are doing this is that Labor is very concerned that the inclusion of forced marriage in this bill will have unintended consequences, including driving forced marriage further underground. The Salvation Army, in its submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry into this bill, said:

There is risk that requiring entities to assess risk of this practice may lead to unintended negative consequences, including racial and/or religious profiling of some staff.

Similarly, Good Shepherd, in its submission to the same inquiry, said:

There is a likelihood that the reporting requirement may function as a barrier to prevention.

We know that hundreds, and potentially thousands, of young Australians are at risk of forced marriage each year. Instead of driving this practice further underground, we should be supporting victims and vulnerable people at risk of forced marriage. Earlier this year Labor announced that a Shorten Labor government, if elected, would completely overhaul our response to forced marriage. Labor, if elected, has committed to establishing a forced marriage unit to provide a one-stop shop to connect victims to the support they need. We have also committed to increasing funding for civil society to support victims. Crucially, it would involve the full removal of the cooperation requirement, which requires victims to assist in the prosecution, often of their parents, in order to access government funded support. If the government are serious about addressing this issue, they should support these amendments and match Labor's forced marriage policy.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support these amendments. I'd like to explain why. We don't believe that the bill should be amended to remove forced marriage from the definition of modern slavery. The government and I as the minister have carefully considered this issue in consultation with over 100 expert business and civil society stakeholders. Their feedback has overwhelmingly supported including forced marriage. This is because some entities may directly contribute to forced marriage through their business activities. For example, a mining company may report on forced marriage risks because it runs remote overseas accommodation camps for workers who are forcibly marrying local women. The bill will also apply to religious entities. These entities may choose to include information in their statements about their actions to ensure that forced marriages do not occur as part of their services.

Importantly, this bill does not require entities to investigate or assess the private activities of their employees. Entities only need to report on forced marriage risks where they could directly contribute to this crime through their own business activities. Our approach to forced marriage is consistent with the way we will require entities to report on all other modern slavery risks linked to their business activities. For example, members have highlighted the vulnerability of private domestic workers to modern slavery. Under this bill, we will expect companies that provide private domestic workers for their overseas employees to report on what they are doing to ensure these workers are not exploited.

Our approach is also consistent with the Senate committee report on the bill. The Senate committee did not recommend any changes to the current definition of modern slavery in the bill. It's for these reasons that the government will not be supporting these amendments.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These amendments from the opposition would remove forced marriage from the definition of modern slavery. The Greens won't be supporting them, fundamentally because we believe that forced marriage actually is a form of modern slavery. It's also important to note that forced marriage can, in some circumstances, be coupled with other forms of modern slavery. We also make the point that Senator Reynolds has just made, which is that nothing in this legislation will require any companies who are caught to report in any way on the private affairs of their employees.

It's worth pointing out that articles 1 and 2 of the UN Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery liken forced marriage to slavery. A range of organisations here in Australia and internationally, including Anti-Slavery Australia, Anti-Slavery International, Walk Free Foundation, the International Labour Organization and Free the Slaves, all consider forced marriage to be a form of modern slavery.

Senator Farrell talked us through, in very general terms, the policy on forced marriage that Labor is intending to take to the upcoming election. From what Senator Farrell has just said, that sounds like a very good policy. On the basis of what Senator Farrell has put to the Senate this evening on that policy, it would absolutely be something that the Greens could support. However, we don't see the inclusion of forced marriage in this legislation as part of the definition of modern slavery as mutually exclusive in any way to address the issue of forced marriage in the way that Senator Farrell has outlined. So, we won't be supporting this amendment.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8549, moved by Senator Farrell, be agreed to.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (3) to (6) on sheet 8549 together:

(3) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 3 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:

11 Simplified outline of this Part

This Part requires modern slavery statements to be given annually to the Minister, describing the risks of modern slavery in the operations and supply chains of reporting entities and entities owned or controlled by those entities.

The statements must also include information about actions taken to address those risks.

Joint modern slavery statements may be given on behalf of one or more reporting entities.

There are civil penalties for reporting entities that fail to comply with these requirements.

The Minister must prepare an annual modern slavery statement on behalf of all non-corporate Commonwealth entities.

The Minister must report annually to the Parliament about compliance by reporting entities with this Act.

(4) Page 13 (after line 27), at the end of Part 2, add:

16A Civil penalty for failure to give or prepare modern slavery statement

Compliance within the first 2 years of this Act

(1) An entity is liable to a civil penalty if:

(a) a modern slavery statement that covers the entity, for a reporting period, is required to be given or prepared within the 2 year period starting on the day this section commences; and

(b) a modern slavery statement that covers the entity for that reporting period is not given or prepared under any of sections 13 to 15 (whether or not the entity giving or preparing the statement complies with the requirements of subsection 13(2), 14(2) or 15(2)).

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

Compliance from 2 years onwards

(2) An entity is liable to a civil penalty if:

(a) a modern slavery statement that covers the entity, for a reporting period, is required to be given or prepared after the end of the 2 year period starting on the day this section commences; and

(b) a modern slavery statement that covers the entity for that reporting period is not given or prepared in accordance with any of sections 13 to 15.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(3) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (2) of this section.

16B Annual report by Minister on compliance with Act

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, the Minister must cause to be prepared a report on compliance by reporting entities with their obligations under this Act during the financial year.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include:

(a) a list of each entity that is a reporting entity at any time during the financial year; and

(b) a list of each entity that has failed, at any time during the financial year, to comply with a requirement to give a modern slavery statement.

(3) The Minister must cause the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is prepared.

(5) Clause 21, page 16 (lines 3 to 9), omit the clause, substitute:

21 Simplified outline of this Part

This Part deals with the following miscellaneous matters:

(a) things done by an unincorporated entity;

(b) civil penalties;

(c) the Minister's capacity to delegate powers and functions under this Act;

(d) review of this Act;

(e) the power to make rules.

(6) Page 16 (after line 14), after clause 22, insert:

22A Civil penalty provisions

Enforceable civil penalty provisions

(1) Subsections 16A(1) and (2) of this Act are each enforceable under Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014.

Note: Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 allows a civil penalty provision to be enforced by obtaining an order for a person to pay a pecuniary penalty for the contravention of the provision.

Authorised applicant

(2) For the purposes of Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, the Secretary of the Department is an authorised applicant in relation to subsection 16A(1) or (2) of this Act.

Relevant court

(3) For the purposes of Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, each of the following courts is a relevant court in relation to subsection 16A(1) or (2) of this Act:

(a) the Federal Court of Australia;

(b) the Federal Circuit Court of Australia;

(c) a court of a State or Territory that has jurisdiction in relation to the matter.

Extension to external Territories etc.

(4) Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, as it applies in relation to subsection 16A(1) or (2) of this Act, extends to:

(a) every external Territory; and

(b) acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia.

Liability of Crown

(5) Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, as it applies in relation to subsection 16A(1) or (2) of this Act, does not make the Crown liable to a pecuniary penalty.

These Labor amendments will introduce penalties for failing to comply with any modern slavery act. As we've said over and over again, big business cannot be trusted to police themselves on modern slavery. The experience overseas makes the need for penalties crystal clear. Anti-Slavery Australia provided evidence to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill to show that, in the United Kingdom, in the three years since the UK Modern Slavery Act's enactment, only about half of the 9,000 to 11,000 organisations that the UK government estimates are required to report have produced a slavery and human trafficking statement. That's simply not good enough. Labor does not want to see only half of the companies complying with the requirements of this bill.

The ACTU in its submission argued that:

In order to make any difference to the lives of workers in Australia and abroad, the Modern Slavery Act must act as a serious motivator for companies to start acting upon the values expressed in their statements and guidelines and provide an effective deterrent for those who fall short of their obligations.

Hence, any Australian legislation enacted should include a strong enforcement mechanism imposing penalties on companies that do not comply with due diligence and reporting requirements.

If the modern slavery bill is going to work, it needs to have teeth. That's why we are moving these amendments.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government doesn't support these amendments. Firstly, in relation to including penalties for noncompliance, the bill should not be amended to include civil penalties for noncompliance. Critically, business feedback shows that market scrutiny as well as reputational risk and reward will drive compliance more effectively than punitive penalties. A penalty regime would be complex and resource intensive, and would likely require a new regulatory enforcement body. Imposing penalties would also not address the most likely reason for noncompliance over the first three years, which is largely implementation. These barriers to compliance are best addressed by providing support to businesses to actually assist them to comply rather than through penalties. This is the exact reason why the government has committed $3.6 million to establish a business engagement unit to advise and support businesses through this process.

The government has also proposed amendments, which have just passed, to strengthen compliance by empowering the minister to require an entity to explain and remedy noncompliance, empowering the minister to publicly name a noncompliant entity and also providing a clear pathway to future penalties if compliance rates are found to be inadequate at the mandatory three-year review. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee did support the government's approach to penalties and, as recommended by the committee, the proposed amendments specify that penalties will be considered at the three-year review rather than imposing penalties at this early stage.

In relation to the requirement for the minister to report annually to the parliament listing noncompliant activities, the government has moved amendments, which have already passed, to require the minister to report annually to parliament, and the government will also publish lists of all entities that do not report on the central register of statements. The bill should not be amended further to require an annual report to list all entities that have not complied. This is due to a range of practical impediments which have been discussed previously in this chamber. As recommended by the committee, we will continue to explore the options to publish a list in future, once we have compiled the list. This does not require legislation.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens will support this amendment from the Australian Labor Party which effectively inserts penalties for failure to comply with provisions in this legislation. We think this will significantly strengthen the bill. We accept that there's a philosophical difference between the coalition parties and the Greens in terms of the level of trust that we have in big business to do the right thing. We believe that it is important to work with business to bring them along on this journey but that we need to keep an appropriately sized stick in the back of our legislative pocket to ensure that there are ramifications for any business which fails to comply.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (3) to (6) on sheet 8549, as moved by Senator Farrell, be agreed to.