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

I rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Bill. Today there are more than 40 million people around the world in slavery. That is more than at any time in human history. Two-thirds of those people are in the Asia-Pacific region, right on our doorstep. In fact, there are now more people trapped in slavery in the world today than there have been at any time in human history. They're all around us: in our regions, our products, our services.

The deprivation of someone's liberty is one of the greatest violations of human rights. We can and must do more to prevent this practice. Labor believes that an effective, strong modern slavery act is an important first step in tackling this problem. That's why, over a year ago, Labor announced our commitment to introduce a modern slavery act and establish an independent antislavery commissioner if elected. We are so pleased that the government has followed our lead and introduced this bill. The bill would, for the first time, establish a supply chain transparency reporting obligation requiring major Australian businesses to report on what steps they're taking to identify modern slavery in their supply chains. Done well, this bill could reframe how businesses approach the issue of slavery in their supply chains.

But, as with all great reforms, the devil is in the detail. To make real change, the law must have teeth. Labor is very disappointed that the government refused to include penalties for companies that breached the proposed Modern Slavery Act and opted for a business engagement unit instead of an independent antislavery commissioner. This weak commitment is disappointing but hardly surprising from a government that has shown itself, time after time, to be toothless when it comes to regulating big business.

Labor moved amendments in the House of Representatives to introduce penalties for companies that fail to comply with the Modern Slavery Act and called for the government to establish an office of an independent antislavery commissioner. While we support this bill because it's a step in the right direction, we believe that the government can and must do better to tackle the appalling human rights abuse. First and foremost, the Modern Slavery Act must have penalties for non-compliance. Labor believes we should not be leaving it to big business to police themselves on slavery. There is a genuine passion in the business community and in the broader Australian community to fight slavery. No business wants slavery in their supply chain. No consumer wants products tainted by slavery. But if there are no penalties there's a high risk that many companies simply won't comply.

Anti-Slavery Australia, in its submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill, found:

Three years since the UK Act's enactment, only approximately half of the 9,000-11,000 organisations that the UK Government estimates are required to report, have produced a 'slavery and human trafficking statement'.

Many stakeholders argue passionately for there to be penalties for companies who breach the Modern Slavery Act. This included the Human Rights Law Centre, the Law Council of Australia and Oxfam, all of whom called for penalties to be included in the bill. The ACTU, in their submission, argued:

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.

Combating slavery should not be optional. There's no excuse for not looking. Labor will again be moving amendments to introduce penalties for failing to comply with the Modern Slavery Act.

We must also address the need for a commissioner. About once a month we hear, watch or read about a new case of slavery right here in Australia, whether it be migrant workers in agriculture or women in sex work. Earlier this year, Four Corners reported that, just a few kilometres from where we stand right now in Parliament House, at least 20 domestic workers were trapped as slaves, yet no-one ever seems to be held to account, and the facts bear this out. The most recent figures from Senate estimates revealed that in five years, despite all the articles we've read about slavery in Australia, just seven people were successfully convicted. We must do more to crack down on this sickening crime. That's why, over a year ago, Labor committed to establishing an office of the independent slavery commissioner if we were elected. Victims of modern slavery are often incredibly vulnerable and face cultural, social, economic and language barriers. There are also significant gaps in the support services we provide for victims of modern slavery. A commissioner would assist to remedy these gaps in enforcement, help victims and work with civil society to help prevent and detect slavery in Australia. Key stakeholders including the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans, Anti-Slavery Australia and the ACTU have joined Labor in the call for the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner. The government's decision to walk away from an independent commissioner in exchange for a business engagement unit shows that their primary concern, as always, is to protect big business.

Finally, Labor is also very concerned that the bill includes forced marriage as one of the forms of exploitation required to be reported on by business. Key stakeholders have warned that this bill may have unintended consequences, including driving forced marriage further underground. As Good Shepherd state in their submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill:

Ordinarily it is not the role of business to inquire into the private lives of its employees, contractors or suppliers (or employees of its contractors) in order to identify practices such as forced marriage. If we liken the practice of forced marriage to that of family violence, corporate responsibility lies with supporting the wellbeing of individuals impacted by violence, not in identification and reporting on violence.

Instead of driving this practice further underground by making it the problem of business, the government should improve the support services it provides to victims.

Despite these concerns, I want to acknowledge the bipartisan and cooperative approach of the assistant minister Senator Reynolds, who's in the chamber today, and reiterate Labor's support for this bill more broadly. Labor passionately supports the introduction of a modern slavery act. We want to see action on this important issue of human rights, and we will be moving amendments to make this bill stronger so that we can move forward in the fight against slavery.

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

I'm very pleased to rise to speak on this very important piece of legislation, the Modern Slavery Bill 2018, and indicate the Greens' support for this bill. Modern slavery as defined by this bill includes slavery, servitude, forced labour, deceptive recruiting, trafficking in persons, debt bondage and organ trafficking. People can, of course—and far too many people, both globally and in Australia, do—find themselves enslaved through threats of violence and bullying or, in some cases, actually through being bought and sold or having their movements restricted. As such, modern slavery can include being forced to work for low wages in sectors like construction, in sweatshops or in food supply chains, including in the agriculture sector.

According to the 2018 Global Slavery Index, there are in excess of 40 million people globally who are subject to some form of modern slavery, and collectively about US$150 billion, which is well over A$200 billion per year, is generated in the global private economy from forced labour alone. There are around 30 million people in the Asia-Pacific region who are enslaved, which is over 65 per cent of all people in that region, and, again, according to that index, there are over 4,000 people who are enslaved in Australia.

In our country, modern slavery is found in the horticulture sector—for example, when backpackers are underpaid, denied visa extensions by their employers or forced to live in substandard accommodation—but it also exists in a range of other sectors, including, arguably, the underpayments of Australian workers employed by companies like 7-Eleven, Domino's and Pizza Hut. Cleaners working in retail chains for contracting or subcontracting cleaning companies are also indicative of oppressive working conditions that may amount to modern slavery. There are, of course, workers in the textile or clothing sector. When we talk about sweatshops, we usually think about things going on overseas, but in this country there are people who are often older migrants to this country, who may not have strong English language skills, who are stitching together clothes or labels onto clothes for as little as $3 or $4 an hour. So this is a serious issue globally but it is also a serious issue in our country.

Australian businesses, in our increasingly globalised markets, often have supply chains that span multiple countries, and for many Australian companies those supply chains are heavily networked into the Asia-Pacific region. And, because of this multinational complexity, many Australian businesses may actually be unaware of the risks of modern slavery being used in their supply chains. Earlier this year, the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply released the results of a slavery survey it conducted which found that 20 per cent of organisations had not taken any measures to ensure a slavery-free supply chain but 80 per cent said that they were motivated to address the issue due to the reputational risk of ignoring it. That survey also found that only 11 per cent of organisations have total transparency across their entire supply chains, whether that be food or any other sector. So, the time for an Australian modern slavery act is well upon us.

This bill follows an inquiry into establishing an Australian modern slavery act undertaken last year by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Its report, Hidden in plain sight, made 48 recommendations. Principal to those recommendations was the establishment of an Australian modern slavery act and, it must be noted, an independent antislavery commissioner to lead and coordinate Australia's response to combating modern slavery. I'll speak a little more about the lack of an independent antislavery commissioner shortly.

Importantly, though, this bill comes on the back of decades of campaigning by antislavery advocates and non-government organisations in Australia. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of them—and some of them are in the gallery today—for their important and selfless contributions to getting us to where we are today, debating an important bill with broad public and political support in this country and in this parliament. The Greens have supported these campaigns and taken these arguments to parliament, and we're very pleased to be part of what I believe has been a genuinely collaborative approach in this place to deliver this legislation.

This bill, once enacted, will require Australian businesses with annual consolidated revenues of more than $100 million to publish annual statements on the steps they are taking to address modern slavery in their supply chains and operations. At this threshold the act will capture about 3,000 companies. These companies will then be required to produce annual slavery statements, signed off at board level, to be published within six months of their annual reports. To educate affected companies on compliance, the government will establish a modern slavery business engagement unit within the Department of Home Affairs. Home Affairs will also produce and publish an annual statement in the Commonwealth parliament on possible modern slavery risks. Importantly, the act will be reviewed in three years, but the Greens have a very strong view that this should be a rolling review rather than a one-off.

It's worth pointing out that this bill regrettably does not include an independent office of oversight. An independent office of oversight was something that was overwhelmingly called for and supported by stakeholders in the sector and, as such, was a recommendation of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill; it was recommendation 3. In their submission to the Senate inquiry, STOP THE TRAFFIK argued:

… the issue of modern slavery is not addressed by one Government department alone … There are at least six government departments whose engagement and action will be required to implement the Act effectively … An Independent Commissioner would be able to work with these departments in a more effective manner than an interdepartmental mechanism led by one department.

The Australian Greens completely agree with the sentiments in that submission. The Human Rights Law Centre mounted a similar argument, noting in their submission:

The UK Anti-Slavery Commissioner Mr Hyland has, according to many UK organisations, been central to raising the profile of these issues within the UK and improving inter-agency cooperation, leading for example to increased numbers of prosecutions and convictions for modern slavery in the UK … Mr Hyland argued that the independence of the Office has been central to its success, enabling him to be a "critical friend" to government agencies, businesses and other stakeholders alike.

It's worth pointing out here that, if you look at Australian political history, particularly recent history, it is people who have statutory independence and the resources and expertise to support them who are best able to drive change. For the Greens, the lack of a genuinely independent office of oversight is the biggest flaw in this legislation, and it is extremely regrettable that the government, having supported the findings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill and having supported the recommendation for an independent antislavery commissioner, has now crab-walked away from that position. It's very disappointing.

In the interests of seeing this important bill pass in some form in this term of the parliament, we're not going to seek to move detailed amendments in the committee stage of this bill, because we do not want to risk the government—which is becoming increasingly chaotic and losing the capacity to manage its own affairs in the House of Representatives—denying this legislation the chance to proceed through the parliament. So we will reluctantly take a collaborative approach to this legislation in the interests of laying a foundation for a legislative program around modern slavery in this country. But we do want to make it very clear that we have a strong view that there needs to be an independent office of oversight. We would urge the government to come back and move amendments to the bill later in this term, and we would urge the Labor Party, in the overwhelmingly likely event that they win government within the next six months or so, to prioritise bringing amendments to this legislation back into parliament to fix up some of the omissions in this bill.

The bill also doesn't provide for penalties. Some stakeholders, in their submissions to the inquiry and in public commentary, have argued for penalties. Others, however, have argued that the first three years should be without penalties and, instead, the focus over those three years should be on developing capacity and buy-in from business. In other words, that argument says we should be focusing more on the carrot than the stick. Many stakeholders that have met with the Greens have expressed a concern that, if organisations are faced with penalties from the day of enactment, not only are they being set up to fail but their efforts will go into avoiding penalties by hiding noncompliance. Although organisations may consider these avoidances as temporary measures until they gain an understanding of what compliance is and what it requires, they will most likely, once initiated, become systemic to their culture and operations, which would, of course, undermine the intent of this legislation.

The Greens hear that argument. We do believe there is a role for penalties to play in this legislation. Whether those penalties are implemented now or later on, once organisations have had time to understand what's required of them, is, in fact, a judgement call. But we argued in our additional comments to the Senate inquiry into this bill that, at the very least, penalties should be considered in the act's first three-year review. And we welcome the government's amendment which, I understand, will require that that occurs. We also believe there's an important leadership role for governments to play in ensuring their own supply chains are as compliant as those in the private sector that will be legislated by this act. For this, there should be a requirement that entities over the reportable threshold comply with the Modern Slavery Act in order to be eligible for government tenders.

Several submitters to the Senate inquiry also called for the act to include a national compensation scheme for victims of modern slavery. There are no greater defenders of human rights in this place than the Australian Greens. I could go through a list of areas where we have consistently stood up for human rights and consistently lost the argument based on the numbers in this place, with the Labor Party and the Liberal Party voting together against fundamental human rights. But we do support the fourth pillar—as we do the other three—of the Australian government's National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery. That fourth pillar, of course, is victim support and protection. But we're not convinced that this act is the most appropriate instrument with which to legislate such a scheme and, as such, it was our recommendation to the Senate inquiry that consideration of a national compensation scheme should be the next priority consideration for the parliament regarding modern slavery. We also recommended that part of this consideration by the Senate or parliament would include whether a victim support scheme would sit under this act or under other Commonwealth legislation such as the Social Security Act, which includes compensation schemes that provide for payments to Australian victims of terrorism overseas.

Another shortcoming that we and many other stakeholders recognised in this bill is its single review of the act in three years. It's worth placing on the record that once this legislation passes—and I genuinely hope it does pass this year; it's ultimately a matter for the government, or the House of Representatives—it'll be a massive learning curve both for businesses and for government. There'll be many elements of this legislation, such as the need for and form of the penalties that I spoke about earlier, that will need to be reviewed after three years. The first three-year review will likely lead to significant changes being made and administered after its conclusion.

These changes will also need reviewing once they've been implemented and bedded down. For this reason, the Greens have a strong view that regular rolling reviews of complex acts like these ought to be standard practice, particularly in areas that exist in changing and evolving environments such as this. But, once again, the government doesn't appear willing to support that, and that's regrettable. Rather than placing the passage of this bill through the parliament at risk, I'll instead move a second reading amendment for a rolling three-year review of the act which would be conducted by an independent statutory antislavery commissioner.

I'd like to make the point that, on a bill this important and life-changing to so many vulnerable and exploited people around the world, it would be extremely regrettable if this bill were not to pass through the parliament. What we have before us is a bill that will bring Australia into line with jurisdictions such as the UK, the European Union and some states in the United States—and some sectors in the US—when it comes to taking strong action against modern slavery in our backyards and beyond. This is a bill that has broad cross-party support in this parliament, and it's something that everyone who supports it should be proud of. I've always regretted, through my political career, that more attention in the media and on social media is not paid to issues where people come together and work collaboratively and are prepared to put aside political differences to progress an important issue. Again, this is a classic example of a really important piece of legislation that's flown very much under the radar in media and public commentary terms, which is regrettable because, as I said, it's come about as a result of a genuinely collaborative approach.

On that basis, I want to thank everyone who's worked so hard to get this legislation up, including stakeholders who are in the gallery today watching this debate. I also want to particularly acknowledge the effort and the constructive work put into this by Senator Reynolds, who I genuinely believe deserves great credit for the collaborative way that she's approached this issue. Although there are, arguably—and in the view of the Greens—ways this legislation could have been made better, we're not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this case. This is a good first step for Australia to take in accepting responsibility and joining global efforts to stamp out modern slavery worldwide. That's why we will support this important bill and all that it seeks to do, but we will continue to work to see the improvements that we believe are necessary made to this legislation in the future. I move the second reading amendment in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate is of the opinion that, every three years, the Modern Slavery Act 2018 should be subject to a review conducted by an independent statutory Anti-Slavery Commissioner."

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which I chair, investigated the Modern Slavery Bill 2018, held hearings into the bill and came to conclusions which are set out in the report of the committee, which was tabled a couple of months ago. I want to start by thanking all of those who made submissions to the inquiry and those who came and gave evidence to the committee. The work of the submitters was very much appreciated, and I congratulate them on the work they've done and the work that I know that they've been doing over a long period of time.

I have to say that I'm very proud to be part of a government that actually introduced this bill. This is something that has been talked about for a long time, but it's taken a Liberal-National government to actually introduce the bill and to move ahead with the fight against modern slavery. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Reynolds, one of our colleagues in this chamber, who has done an enormous amount of work on this particular bill. I also congratulate Mr Chris Crewther, who was chairman of the joint committee that investigated this issue—modern slavery in Australia—over a long period of time, putting in a very detailed report with a number of recommendations, some of which were taken up by our committee in reviewing the government's legislation. The report of the joint committee was not in relation to any particular piece of legislation but a general review of the whole subject, and I believe it was as a result of the work of that joint committee that the government has introduced this bill and taken the first step in Australia towards combating modern slavery.

Very often our opponents in this chamber, as is their ability, of course, try to pretend that they, rather than the government, are the sole guardians of social justice in Australia. But if you look back through history you'll find that it's the Liberal and National parties that have done most of the work in social justice, and this particular bill is a great example of that. I acknowledge that the committee I spoke about previously has done a lot of work, but I again acknowledge there are many groups in society who have been working on this for a long time, who the government has consulted with and who gave evidence to our committee. I again thank them for alerting other Australians to the issue and to proposing solutions.

After its deliberations, the committee made five recommendations, and I'll briefly run through them. I thank the government for adopting, I think, three out of the five recommendations and, on the two others, noting reasons for not accepting them at the present time. Before I do that, I will refer to some of the issues. A number of submitters proposed amendments or suggested ways in which the bill could be improved. But I think those submitters who were particularly involved came to the conclusion that, whilst the bill wasn't absolutely 100 per cent perfect, it was important to get the bill dealt with, and dealt with quickly, and to adopt the bill on the basis that it would be reviewed in three years and that this quite significant change to the way businesses operate in Australia could be assessed over that three-year period and any recommendations for the future could be made.

I particularly want to refer to what I thought was the very good evidence given by a person who I might say would be surprised, along with me, that I would ever say that he was right on the mark, and that's Mr Chris Evans, who was, as you might recall, the Leader of the Government in the Senate during one of the Labor periods of government. Chris Evans gave evidence on the behalf of the Walk Free Foundation, and he gave evidence at the same time as Ms Heather Moore, who is from the Freedom Partnership to end modern slavery. Some of their evidence to the committee was very mature and very sound and influenced the committee in the resolutions it reached. Ms Moore, on behalf of the Freedom Partnership, said:

As outlined in our submission, we think that there could be some minor improvements to this bill, but I'd like to say first and foremost that we think it's a very good bill, we support this bill and we would like to see it passed as soon as practicable—before the end of the year if possible.

I'm very grateful for the support of the Labor Party, who I acknowledge joined with government members on the committee to recommend passing the bill with the recommendations the committee made. That means that this bill will pass by the end of the year, as Ms Moore asked. I'm delighted, I might say, to hear Senator McKim also adopt that approach, the approach of Mr Evans—that is, whilst some people may have some reservations, it's important to get it dealt with and dealt with as soon as possible. In his opening remarks, Mr Evans said:

You might be surprised, Chair—

as we had a bit of a talk about this before he gave his evidence—

that I'm here to support the government's legislation in large part, and that's because I think they got it right.

He then gave some evidence.

There was some comment, as Senator McKim and others have spoken about, about the statutory officer. There was debate about what this officer should do. As I understand it, the committee came to the conclusion that this officer should just be a friend of those—like a friend of the court—who were getting involved in defeating modern slavery. It is quite a remarkable change for business. We've looked at it, certainly, from the point of view of the victims of modern slavery, as we should. But, for this to work, businesses will have to make quite a dramatic change in the way they operate, particularly businesses with very long supply chains. I don't have the figure in my mind, but Qantas, I think, were given as an example where they had—again, don't hold me to these figures—over 10,000 different suppliers in their supply chain. For Qantas, or any business, then to be able to ensure not only that they were doing the right thing, which they can easily do, but that every one of those 10,000-odd suppliers was doing the right thing as well is, of course, a mammoth task and a mammoth change in the way businesses operate.

The idea of having a statutory officer was, as I recall, to give help to businesses in that first three-year period. That's why the government and the committee opposed the suggestions that penalties should be introduced straight away. It is going to be a dramatic change. It will involve my old profession of the law. It will involve a lot of work for lawyers, and I suspect lawyers are looking forward to this, because it will be a lot of work. Businesses will have to look at this very carefully and make sure they're doing it correctly, and that will involve paying highly paid lawyers, which is good for the profession but also good to make sure that businesses do do the right thing, as is required by this law.

In dealing with this bill the committee heard a lot about the UK provisions and the Hong Kong provisions, as I recall. We had the advantage of learning from the beneficial parts of operations in other countries and also where those operations have gone wrong. Mr Evans was one who did not agree with the view that it would be something 'which we associate with mediation, arbitration and decision-making'. He said:

I haven't found a really good name, but I think of it as an advocacy or advisory role—

that a statutory officer could have. That was one of the recommendations made by the committee, which the government, I don't think, has taken up, but I'll come back to that later.

But Mr Evans and Ms Moore, and indeed, many of the submitters, agreed that it was important to get this bill in place, to get the bill working and to have that review in three years when we can determine what sort of amendments need to be made, whether penalties were necessary and whether businesses were doing the right thing. The committee, you might note, Deputy President, did recommend that the government establish a list of those reporting entities, work towards building a list of reporting entities and publish compliance standards publically in order to test the proposition that reputational risk, which had been spoken about by many of the submitters, is a sufficient motivator for reporting entities to comply with the requirements of the act. That was the first recommendation of the committee, which the government has accepted in principle. That will occur at an administrative level, as I understand it.

Our second recommendation was that the committee suggests that the list of entities who do report, including entities outside the compliance threshold who report voluntarily, should be published publicly. This was suggesting that, even when you didn't have to report, many companies would, for business reasons, report and say, 'Although we're not required to do this, we're going to tell you what we've done so you will know that we are a good corporate citizen, that we're doing the right thing.' And of course there was the suggestion that, as I said, there was reputational advantage to companies that were able to report. The committee made a recommendation about that independent statutory officer, with powers to be a help. Although the government hasn't accepted that at this stage, they've noted the suggestion and the recommendation by the committee, and I understand that that's something that will be at the forefront when the review takes place in three years time.

The committee further recommended that the three-year statutory review period include consideration of all aspects of the act, with particular attention to compliance thresholds and compliance standards, and that the review be required to consider whether a mandatory penalty is required, drawing on the evidence and data gathered in the first three years of the act. The committee acknowledges that it may be shown that penalties are not needed. The government has accepted that recommendation, I'm pleased to say. The committee heard contrasting views on whether the bill should or shouldn't include provision for penalties. Some argued that industry-driven compliance rates would be low without penalties. Others suggested that compliance standards would be more rigorous and meaningful without the penalty regime.

The committee noted that the lack of a penalty regime makes the bill consistent with similar legislation in the UK and some parts of Europe and the US and that it is designed to encourage a race to the top rather than to set up a coercive punishment regime that may be counterproductive to compliance and quality of reporting statements. The committee said in its report that it's not averse to the inclusion of a penalty scheme but it is of the view that any consideration of the potential efficacy and scope of the penalty scheme would be most usefully conducted as part of the statutory three-year review of the act, with the benefit of the substantial data that will have been amassed by that time regarding the act generally and compliance specifically.

Finally, the committee recommended that the various legislative pieces relating to modern slavery and our various acts, including the Criminal Code and certain migration bills, be collated into one place to make it easier for those seeking to comply. The government's noted that and will look at whether it is possible and will be useful. Of course, there was another recommendation of the committee, and that was that the bill be passed, taking into account the other recommendations made.

I'm delighted that this bill will come into effect with, I think, the support of all parties—even, dare I say, the Greens political party, who, responsibly, have said that they are not going to move amendments in the committee stage. Whilst there are some aspects of the bill that they don't like, they recognise that the greater importance is to get the bill through. I conclude by saying how proud I am—and how proud I know all the members of the government are—that it is this government, the Liberal-Nationals government, that has actually worked and legislated for an issue that has been around for a long, long time. Again, I thank all the other groups. I've mentioned two of them, but there was a series of them, mentioned in our report, who made some submissions and gave evidence, and I want to thank all of them. I again acknowledge the work of Senator Reynolds and Mr Crewther in the joint standing committee that looked into this in some great detail, as it was their work that has initiated this legislation.

I conclude by thanking other members of the committee, most of whom I think have spoken or will speak in this debate. That includes the deputy chair, Senator Pratt, and Senator Molan, Senator McKim, Senator Hume and Senator Watt. I thank them for the contribution they made to this report. As always, I thank the hardworking and very astute staff that the Senate is fortunate to have in the committee secretariat, who support Senate committees in delivering their reports. This shows the Senate committee system at its very best. Sometimes I'm very critical of the system when it is used for purely crass political purposes, but this bill report is a great example of how the Senate committees work properly. People work together, they take submissions, they consider submissions, and they say to the government at times, 'Thanks for this, but you haven't got it quite right and the whole system would prove better if it were amended slightly.' I'm delighted that our government has been mature enough and good enough to say, 'We accept that our bill needs some tweaking and we're going to do it.' Congratulations to all involved—the committee, the submitters and the government—for doing it. It is a good bill, long overdue, but hopefully it will be here in 2018.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 after a hard-fought campaign by a wide range of stakeholders that Labor has listened to and responded to. The clothes we buy and the food we eat in Australia is often imported or includes imported parts. Many countries from which it is sourced do not benefit from the labour regulations we enjoy here at home. Indeed, new research published in the journal Nature Communications found that fishing crews all over the world are working excessive hours for little or no pay in horrific conditions. Modern slavery is real, it is pervasive and it is everywhere. There are more people in slavery or slavery-like conditions in 2018 than at any other time in human history. Many of these are children. The International Labor Organisation has estimated that about 168 million children worldwide are engaged in child labour.

Two-thirds of the 45.8 million people trapped in slavery worldwide are in the Asia-Pacific region. Many of them are stuck in the global supply chains of products and services that Australians use every day. They are victims of exploitation in private sector activities like manufacturing, construction, agricultural and fishing. Even in Australia, an estimated 4,300 people are currently trapped in slavery or slavery-like conditions. They are migrant workers, international students, backpackers and women; they are people working in horticultural industries, our convenience stores or for labour-hire companies.

As a nation, we rightly find the notion of slavery abhorrent. It conjures images of subjugation, pain and fear. As a society we know this is unacceptable. Modern slavery is the worst abuse of humanity by humanity. We are all shamed by this shocking reality. Modern slavery harms people of all ages, genders and races. It deprives people of their autonomy, their freedom, their potential and their dignity. It harms their physical and mental wellbeing. Eighty per cent of the 75 million people who make our clothes are women between the ages of 18 and 35. Often these women live in poverty, suffer from exploitation and verbal and physical abuse and work for as little as the equivalent of A40c an hour. That is why a number of countries, including the UK, France and the Netherlands, have acted with legislation to curb the rise of slavery in business supply chains.

While this modern slavery legislation introduced by the government is welcome, it is indeed very much overdue and it does lack the teeth contained in models adopted elsewhere. The lack of an independent antislavery commissioner or adequate penalties makes it a lost opportunity to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts broadly and child labour in particular. Its major legislative omissions will substantially curtail the success of the implementation of this act. No person wants to purchase goods tainted by slavery. No business wants slavery in its supply chains. With this legislation, turning a blind eye to allegations of slavery will no longer be an option, and that is a very good thing.

Legislative change in Australia has been the culmination of advocacy across a multitude of sectors by people dedicated to ensuring human rights in Australia are respected, and it should be no surprise that it has been Labor that has been very supportive and has been listening to that sector and leading every step of the way. In 2016, I initiated an inquiry into human trafficking as part of my role as deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. It ended with key recommendations to prevent such instances and provide support to victims. This was then followed in 2017, as part of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, with an inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia. The committee held public hearings in Mildura, Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra, and its recommendations were consistent with those of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's inquiry into human trafficking.

The committee found that there are serious gaps in the way victims are identified and supported as well as in the ways our criminal justice agencies cooperate to bring perpetrators to justice. Particularly concerning were the reports by stakeholders of serious misconduct in overseas residential institutions and within Australia, particularly in the horticulture and labour hire companies. For example, in Mildura, the committee heard from Mr Turaga of Fiji. He had been promised the opportunity to work in Australia and to earn a fair living, with the opportunity to study and the ability to send money back home to his family. Instead, he had his passport taken upon arrival, he was told he had to pay back a debt associated with the cost of him coming to Australia, he was forced to work over 12 hours a day and his wages were not repatriated to his family.

Further investigations revealed that this kind of exploitation was not isolated. The committee heard that such passport seizures, wage theft and violations of even the most basic workplace health and safety laws had become a business model for labour hire companies. As a result, the foreign affairs committee's report recommended a series of changes to the way Australia's victim support programs operate, including the introduction of a national compensation scheme; improvements to how victims are supported in the visa process; the delinking of this support from criminal prosecutions; and the introduction of a national labour hire licensing scheme.

The committee listened to stakeholders and recommended the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner, the introduction of global supply chain reporting requirements and penalties for their breach. The committee also made a series of recommendations to improve coordination and training for Australia's law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.

Labor supported these recommendations. In fact, the recommendations were in lock step with Labor's policy to introduce a modern slavery act in Australia, announced by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow justice minister, Clare O'Neil, in June last year. Labor's proposed Australian modern slavery act includes supply chain reporting requirements for major Australian companies and the establishment of an antislavery commissioner. A Labor government would enforce supply chain reporting requirements for all major businesses, ensuring that no Australian company is either directly or indirectly engaged in modern slavery. Major Australian companies will be required to comply by reporting annually to the government with a slavery and human trafficking statement detailing the steps they've taken to ensure that modern slavery is not occurring in their business or their supply chain. Each statement must include specific information about the company's supply chain: where risks have been identified in that supply chain, what steps are being taken to ensure slavery is not part of that supply chain, training provided to staff on these matters, and whether slavery has been found in the supply chain and what action has been taken. The list of companies in Australia who are required to report under Labor's Australian modern slavery act will be publicly available. A central repository of statements will be established, and, most importantly, there will be penalties for noncompliance with the act.

Labor will also establish an office of an Australian independent antislavery commissioner, recognising the importance of this role in ensuring the effectiveness of the legislation. A Labor government, unlike this government, will introduce an independent antislavery commissioner to monitor and scrutinise the government's work in tackling modern slavery and to help address the gaps in enforcement and victim support. Key stakeholders, including ACRATH, Anti-Slavery Australia and the ACTU, have joined Labor in the call for the establishment of such a role. Labor's commissioner will work with victims of slavery to receive inquiries and complaints. Labor's commissioner will assist business in building and improving best practice in protecting their supply chains from the taint of slavery. Labor's commissioner will work with civil society to help prevent and detect slavery in Australia. Labor's commissioner will lead Australia's global efforts to fight slavery, including working with other countries and international organisations. The legislation before us does not achieve any of this. The government's decision to reject an independent antislavery commissioner in favour of a business engagement unit shows that their primary concern, unfortunately, as always, is with protecting big business.

The absence of civil penalties in this bill is baffling. Leaving companies to police themselves has not been effective in any other jurisdiction. The banks didn't do it, and neither did the insurance companies, and companies aren't doing it in the United Kingdom. Evidence provided to the Senate inquiry into this bill showed that, in the UK, where there are no penalties, the percentage of businesses that are reporting still hovers at around 30 per cent of those that supposedly have had an obligation to do so. That is not good enough. Conforming to the law cannot be an option. It is important to achieve the right balance to ensure companies are encouraged to undertake best practice and scrutinise their suppliers to ensure that they are also compliant. Regardless of size, all businesses have a responsibility to ensure that they are not trading in the misery of modern slavery, and penalties will ensure this. Penalties should include: a civil penalty provision for failure to report, with an immediate start date, focused on the fact of reporting rather than the content of the report, to give business time to build compliance procedures and gain familiarity with these new requirements; a civil penalty provision for submitting an inadequate report, with a delayed start date of two years from the date on which the bill receives royal assent; and a requirement that the minister report annually to the parliament on the companies that have failed to comply with the act.

Stakeholders who provided evidence to the Senate inquiry into the bill also raised a number of further concerns, including the threshold for reporting. The reporting requirement in the bill will apply to entities with consolidated annual revenue of more than $100 million. Some stakeholders have called for a lower threshold of $25 million, to align with ASIC's definition of 'a large corporation', or $50 million, which is closer to the United Kingdom's model. Labor is committed to reviewing changes suggested by stakeholders at the Senate inquiry, including the threshold for reporting, as part of a three-year review provided for in section 24 of this bill.

The clandestine nature of modern slavery makes it very difficult for authorities to detect, investigate and prosecute incidents when they occur, wherever they may occur. Victims of modern slavery are often incredibly vulnerable and face cultural, social, economic and language barriers. There are also significant gaps in the support services we provide for victims of modern slavery. Modern slavery acts and similar legislation are currently in place, as I said, in the UK, France, the EU and some states of the US such as California. A modern slavery act will encourage businesses to take every step they can to put pressure on suppliers and notify authorities, as well as ensuring that they are more careful about checking who their suppliers are and what kind of labour practices they are engaged in.

So, despite the shortfalls in this bill, it is an important piece of legislation and this parliament needs to enact it for the best interests of our community and communities elsewhere in the world. Vigorous consultation with stakeholders, including NGOs, the business sector and departments, has made clear that modern slavery is an issue which needs to be dealt with immediately. I want to sincerely thank all of the stakeholders who made submissions and appeared before the law enforcement committee, the Senate committee and the joint foreign affairs committee, particularly the Law Council of Australia and its former president, Fiona McLeod; ACRATH and Christine Carolan from there; the Walk Free Foundation, particularly former Senator Chris Evans; and the Salvation Army Freedom Partnership, particularly Heather Moore, who has worked tirelessly on this issue.

I acknowledge Fuzz Kitto of STOP THE TRAFFIK and the petition that was received by Senator Penny Wong and our shadow justice minister, Claire O'Neill, on 13 November, signed by tens of thousands of people from around the world, calling on this Australian parliament to be a global leader against slavery by enacting a strong and effective modern slavery act. I understand that Fuzz presented that petition to Senator Penny Wong and to Ms Claire O'Neill on 13 November. Fuzz, as the national co-director of STOP THE TRAFFIK, was doing so as a response to members of its Australian coalition, which represents over 30 organisations working together to prevent, disrupt and abolish modern slavery. I understand that STOP THE TRAFFIK has been actively engaging with members and senators on all sides of politics, as well as with business, industry, non-government organisations and consumers on this issue of a modern slavery act for Australia. That petition that Senator Wong then presented to this Senate was signed by some 52,719 people from around Australia and the world, coordinated by Freedom United. It commends the Australian parliament for taking bold first steps towards creating a modern slavery law that could greatly impact the lives of millions of people working under conditions of forced labour. It went on to outline how, as we know all too well, many workers in Asia endure forced labour to bring us, as I said, the garments, the food, the electronics and other goods we enjoy. I am very pleased that Senator Wong presented that petition to this parliament and I thank STOP THE TRAFFIK for presenting it to Senator Wong to do so.

There are many more, of course, who have fought for this legislation to end slavery for many years. There is no doubt that this legislation, limited though it is, will drive corporate change and will have a positive impact on countries around the world. It will create a framework for business, government and civil society to address modern slavery. I want to congratulate members throughout this parliament, particularly our shadow minister, Ms Clare O'Neil, but also the chair of the foreign affairs committee inquiry, Mr Chris Crewther, from the other place, and indeed my Senate colleague Senator Linda Reynolds, with whom I had the pleasure of working closely on this issue. I understand how passionate she is about this issue and I share her passion.

But the work is not over, and Labor is not ready to stop working. We will ensure that we are doing all we can to fight this horrific practice, rather than leave the job half done. We do not accept modern slavery in any form, whether in Australia, the Indo-Pacific region or anywhere else throughout the world. We do not accept slavery in the supply chains of companies operating in Australia. That is why we must legislate to ensure that the tragic stories we have heard are never, ever repeated. It is abhorrent to me—it is abhorrent to so many in this place—that in this day and age, 2018, we still have to deal with issues of slavery and slavery-like practices. The reality is that there is modern slavery within our communities and indeed within our region. It is real, it is pervasive, it is everywhere. We must stamp it out. We must end this practice. It is abhorrent. I commend the bill in front of us today and hope it can be improved upon in time to come.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018. My remarks will be brief, given the Senate's difficulties of late in debating and passing legislation that truly does matter. Although some members of the public may beg to differ, there are times that the parliament can pass legislation that is for the common good. The Modern Slavery Bill represents such legislation. While there have been some speed bumps along the way, Centre Alliance is committed to ensuring that this passes both houses of parliament this sitting fortnight.

This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 28 June 2018 following the extensive consultation process initiated by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade during its inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia. The bill was then referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which tabled its report on 24 August 2018. The majority report contains six recommendations centred around reporting requirements imposed by the bill, the appointment of an independent statutory officer, matters to be considered by the legislative three-year review of the act, and references to existing modern slavery offences in Australia. As with many bills that come before the Senate, there's always room for improvement. Just how much the bill should be improved has been the subject of much debate and discussion, especially in the last three months—actually, especially in the last few weeks—in the backrooms of this building.

A range of aphorisms are relevant to the current circumstances: 'Perfect is the enemy of good'; 'Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without'; and—I say in my best Shakespeare voice!—'Striving to be better, oft we mar what's well'. And that may well be the first and last time you'll hear a submariner quoting Shakespeare! It is against this backdrop that I can indicate that Centre Alliance will not be supporting the amendments circulated by the opposition. The message we have been receiving loud and clear from some of the key stakeholders is that we are better off passing something this year, or else we risk delaying this legislation's coming into force for perhaps another 12 months. Centre Alliance has decided to focus on what outcomes can be achieved rather than what can't. Once passed, this bill will ensure that some of the biggest companies operating in Australia will be required by law to examine their supply chains for signs of modern slavery. If modern slavery is found, they must take steps to ensure that it does not continue. The significance of this cannot be underestimated. The lives of millions of people working under cruel and unsafe conditions stand to change for the better because of this legislation.

There have been some exchanges between Minister Reynolds and me in the last few committee stages, where I've called her out for being wrong. I don't resile from that, and I would always do that with any senator in this room. On the flip side, we must always recognise when the minister has done a fantastic job. In this case, I truly believe the minister has done some great work in getting this through not only the Senate and its crossbench but also her own party. I will put it on the record that we took her to the brink and then had to march back a little bit. But I think we've come to a reasonable compromise. Thank you, Minister. I would also like to acknowledge my former Senate colleague Skye Kakoschke-Moore. Skye has remained a special adviser to the International Justice Mission, and I hope she will be back here in July next year. I would also like to acknowledge Heather Moore. Her pragmatic approach helped ensure the best possible outcome could be achieved. I look forward to this bill passing and I commend it to the Senate.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to speak on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018. In terms of the Senate and in terms of the Australian parliament, it is a momentous occasion that we are debating this bill. As part of the committee inquiry looking into modern slavery, I had the experience, along with Senator Reynolds, of visiting the UK. From my own experiences in the North, and from the concerns around the businesses that we have, I know the questions that have been raised about the exploitation of workers. Going to the UK to examine the UK Modern Slavery Act provided enormous insights. But, even more than that, it is imperative for Australia to stand with the rest of the world in trying to combat slavery. Slavery is abhorrent and it should have been abolished a long time ago. Sadly, it hasn't been abolished. Sadly, there are way too many women, in particular, and children caught up in the vile norm of disempowerment of men, women and young children. In the UK, we heard Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne speak very strongly about why the UK act focused on having an antislavery commissioner. Senator Reynolds and the chair of the committee, Chris Crewther, were also able to see this. I know that it has been a bit of a journey to actually get this bill to this point, and I certainly commend you, Senator Reynolds, and the others who were on the committee with me that we are able to be here to discuss this.

In the UK, we heard of the profound importance of the role of that commissioner and the need for that commissioner. Yes, this is a first step, but Labor is very committed to ensuring that we go to the next step as well and have the commissioner role included in the bill. Strengthening the legislation around policing is necessary, and the ability of businesses to monitor themselves is critical, but it doesn't go far enough. I think we all accept that. I think we know that. Those are the areas that I will constantly focus on. The committee travelled as far away as the United Kingdom, and we were left with a really strong impression of what is important in legislation that comes before our parliament to ensure that slavery does not exist. We have to make sure that this bill has the teeth that it should have to send a very strong message right across this country and to any people across the seas who think that it is okay to enslave people in conditions that are abhorrent. We have to make sure that we're sending a very strong message. That is the next step and that is the place that I hope we will get to. Penalties and an independent commissioner are the steps that we have to aim for in this.

When we were in the UK, we had the opportunity of also speaking with some of the businesses. One that really stayed with me was our visit to Sky UK and the time that we had there. I was quite impressed with the diligence of Ms Fiona Ball, who was the responsible business manager at the time. She gave us a very clear briefing on Sky UK and what they were doing, and not only in terms of the UK legislation on modern slavery. They were talking about the practical steps in how they look at their supply chain, and, again, it gave us a great insight into what is very possible and what should be possible for businesses in Australia. Sky UK talked to us about the fact that everything they do is recorded and monitored, right down to where they get their television screens from and where they get the material for establishing their studios and the flow-on effect of monitoring even those businesses who provide them with just an earpiece for the presenter sitting at the table. They follow the supply chain and make sure that the monitoring of that supply chain is consistent with the recommendations of the UK legislation. That is where Australia needs to get to. We need to make sure that our legislation enforces that kind of diligence on companies, that they are following the supply chain to make sure that there is no-one, not a single person, enslaved in the production of that product. That's where we need to get to.

As you've heard from previous speakers on this side, Labor will be moving amendments in relation to the areas of the bill that we see as needing to be strengthened. But I do, once again, want to commend the members of the committee whom I travelled with on this report, Hidden in plain sight, and I would say to the Senate: it is well worth reading. Please, we've got to do more to stop slavery in this country.

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

I thank all of my colleagues from the bottom of my heart for their contributions here today and I echo the sentiments of all who have spoken on this bill and all who have contributed. I do think it represents the very best of this Senate and it also represents the very best of this parliament. We have had the parliament, the executive, business and civil society come together in a common purpose to eradicate the slavery that we have inadvertently helped create in our supply chains overseas and also here, as we've said in the parliamentary report, Hidden in plain sight.

I thank all members who have contributed to this debate, in particular my counterpart in the other chamber, Clare O'Neil MP, for the nature in which we were able to work together and collaborate to strengthen this bill. I also extend my sincere thanks to Senator McKim and the Greens for their somewhat robust engagement in this debate. The bill might not be perfect in everybody's minds, but I think it is, as everybody here has said, a great step. So, Senator McKim, thank you very much for your contributions. I also thank Senator Singh and Senator McCarthy for their engagement when I was a member of the committee inquiring into this matter. It has been a labour of love and passion for many of us. I also thank Senator Patrick for his contributions and robust engagement in coming to this point, and Senator Storer, who has had significant engagement with this in the last few weeks. Despite our wide range of views, we all agree on the fundamental principle that modern slavery has absolutely no place anywhere in the world today, and particularly in our supply chains for the goods and services that Australians use every single day.

I'd also like to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Hon. Alex Hawke MP, for initiating this bill and for taking into account the wide range of views presented in civil society and industry on combating this issue. I also pay tribute to my colleague Chris Crewther MP, who very ably and passionately chaired the inquiry into the establishment of a modern slavery act here in Australia. As Senator McCarthy has said, that committee produced one of the best reports in this period of parliament on this particular issue. It was called Hidden in plain sight. Every member of the committee believed that title was very apt, as modern slavery is something that, while we might see evidence of it in our own communities—even here in Australia—is hidden in plain sight because, while we see it, we don't understand it for what it actually is. Without Chris Crewther's passion and commitment as chair of the subcommittee, we wouldn't be here talking about this bill today.

There have been many civil society organisations that have also engaged in this process, and I notice there are a couple of people from those organisations here today in the gallery. I'd particularly like to thank Heather Moore, from the Salvation Army, for the amazing work that they have done at all stages of the inquiry, the reviews and the development of this bill, and Fuzz and Carolyn Kitto, from STOP THE TRAFFIK, who have worked tirelessly to make sure we got to this day. I sincerely thank them, Save the Children and the many other organisations that have worked so collaboratively together. I also thank the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that inquired into this bill, which was very ably led by my colleague Senator Ian Macdonald. As he said in this place, the committee put a lot of serious consideration and thought into this report, and the government has largely adopted the committee's recommendations. The Modern Slavery Bill 2018 is a critical milestone in our response to this heinous practice. When legislated, this act will build greater transparency by shining a light into the length and breadth of the global supply chains.

The term 'modern slavery' is used to describe a range of activities. We're not talking about the unfair labour practices and fair pay for a fair day's work; we're not talking about that aspect of labour laws. We are talking about the most serious deprivation of individual liberty and individual freedoms—servitude. Modern slavery today encompasses human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices, servitude, forced marriage and forced labour. Each of these on its own is a serious exploitative practice and a grave violation of human rights, and they simply have no place in the world today. Just as fundamentally, modern slavery practices are a denial of individual liberties and democratic freedoms. Bonded labour, indebted servitude and trafficking are all the most gross violations of personal freedoms and individual rights.

Today slavery rarely involves chains or obvious physical control over victims—although, sadly, in some places there is evidence that chains still do exist. Those who exploit others in this way typically use more subtle forms of coercion, such as threats and deception, to maintain power over their victims, who are some of the most vulnerable and powerless in the world today. The United Nations International Labour Organization estimates that there are at least 40 million people around the world caught up in modern slavery. Of the victims, at least 25 million are exploited in global supply chains, including at least 16 million in the private sector supply chains, and about 15 million in forced marriage. Sadly, our region is also the global epicentre of modern slavery, with about two-thirds of victims situated in our Asia-Pacific region.

The exploitation of people, sadly, is a highly lucrative business. Slavery alone generates more than $190 billion annually, globally. I will say that again: $190 billion annually. Every single dollar of that is on the back of the exploitation of other people. That $190 billion every year is more than the combined profit of Apple, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Microsoft and Facebook combined. The personal and human cost to people who have been subject to this abuse is immeasurable. There are many industries at risk of having modern slavery in their supply chains, including garment manufacturing, mining, seafood, construction, electronics and agriculture. Awareness of the problem globally is gradually increasing, and international efforts to combat it are gaining momentum. I would particularly like to congratulate and thank the Walk Free Foundation and their founder, Andrew Forrest, for really driving a lot of the global awareness of modern slavery and harnessing a desire to tackle it.

The Australian government also recognises that this is a global problem, and it's not confined to the poorest nations in the globe. Edmund Burke once remarked that slavery is a weed which grows on every soil. But slavery is not just something that Australians contribute to unknowingly when they buy their clothes, when they eat their food and when they use their electronic devices. It also exists here in Australia.

On a personal note, I would particularly like to say to the Senate how personally happy and delighted I am that, with the passage of this legislation, Australia will become the first country to acknowledge, and seek that companies look for, the practice of trafficking of children into foreign orphanages to be enslaved, with the orphanages earning money from us. It was during a visit to Cambodia in 2016 with Save the Children that I became aware of the issue of voluntourism, with thousands and thousands of Australians unwittingly supporting the institutionalisation of vulnerable children in so-called orphanages that get money from us when we volunteer. It is perverse, it is evil and we have a responsibility to fix it. Again, like the UK has found with the introduction of their Modern Slavery Act, modern slaves are often hidden in plain sight—and not just in the UK, the US and across the EU. We have people in slavery here in Australia today. They are working on our farms, sometimes in our shopping centres, in nail bars and in massage parlours.

Australia already does have a legislative framework and criminal justice arrangements to deal with these sorts of crimes domestically, including specialist police investigative teams, a dedicated victim support program and comprehensive criminal offences. Here in Australia, specialist police investigative teams have received more than 800 referrals for suspected modern slavery crimes right here in Australia. A dedicated visa framework has already provided over 150 victims and family members with permanent residency in Australia. However, what our existing legislative framework lacks is a mechanism to directly target modern slavery in global supply chains, or methods to support the business community to take action.

Australian business and industry are exposed to modern slavery risks, but they also have enormous influence and enormous power to address these risks and to cultivate change. In developing the bill, the government worked closely with business as well as civil society, including 16 consultation roundtables with more than 170 businesses and civil society proponents. We've had more than 50 targeted meetings with key stakeholders and provided targeted exposure of the draft bill with more than 40 stakeholders.

In response to some of the comments from those opposite, while many in this chamber are so ready to demonise this sort of phantom concept of big business, what they actually forget is that working in each and every one of these Australian businesses are everyday Australians who want to do the right thing. People in these companies, Australians in these companies, are absolutely appalled to think that their business practices and what they do, and the goods they source from overseas, are the result of slavery. I have found nothing but cooperation and engagement from every aspect of the business sector, because not only is it good business but it is also the right thing for them to do. And, in fact, more than 90 per cent of the submissions on the government's consultation process were overwhelmingly positive about this legislation.

The centrepiece of this legislation is the introduction of an annual modern slavery reporting requirement for large corporations and other entities, like universities and large charities. The reporting requirement will apply to around 3,000 entities in the Australian market with annual global revenue above a $100,000 threshold. It will apply to all Australian businesses as well as foreign businesses with operations in Australia.

The mandatory reporting requirements include the entity's structure; operations and supply chains; potential modern slavery risks; actions they're taking to address those risks; and how entities themselves are assessing the effectiveness of their actions. Importantly, and I believe a global first, this reporting requirement will also apply to the Commonwealth government. So, not only is this government asking others to take these important steps; we're also asking ourselves and making sure that within the federal government we also comply in our own supply chains.

These modern slavery statements will be published on a central website so they are accessible to the public, investors and business peers. This promotes transparency and ensures the community can easily access them. And I believe, and as others have said in this chamber again today, that market scrutiny and increased awareness will drive positive and virtuous behavioural change, and this is all designed to promote a race to the top as investors and consumers reward positive business engagement.

The reporting requirement will be reviewed after three years to ensure that the legislation remains best practice and continues to evolve in line with international developments. However, we recognise this is an important and a significant change for business, which is why the government is establishing a $3.6 million expert modern slavery business engagement unit in the Department of Home Affairs to provide advice on how to comply with the legislation but also, if they find slavery, to provide advice and assistance on how they can go about dealing with it.

Most non-compliance over the first three years of reporting will be due to a lack of awareness from business. That is clearly the experience and the advice from the United Kingdom. Initially, their lower compliance reporting rates were not deliberate; it was really because many of their 8,000 companies did not know how to address it.

The amendments that we're moving today will ensure that the bill includes a clear pathway to future penalties if required. The amendments will explicitly require the three-year review of the reporting requirement to consider compliance rates and whether additional compliance rates are actually required. Lastly, the reporting requirement is subject to ongoing monitoring and evaluation by the parliament, which is only right.

In conclusion, Australia has dedicated more than 15 years of consecutive regional aid investment to combat human trafficking in our region and we continue to place a high priority on regional engagement in forums, including through the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime. As my colleagues in this chamber have acknowledged today, the passage of this modern slavery bill into law is the next step forward for Australia in combating trafficking and slavery.

The global nature of modern slavery demands a global response, and no one country alone will ever be able to address this scourge. This modern slavery act will set a clear standard for action, which will help Australia deliver tangible results, and result in the freedom from slavery for many, many people here and also overseas. I would like to conclude with the words of William Wilberforce: 'You may choose to look the other way, but you can never, ever again say you did not know.' Thank you.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Storer, I'll just go to Senator McKim, in terms of the amendment, and then come back to you. So the question—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: my understanding is that Senator Storer wishes to seek leave to make speech on the second reading of this bill, and, in an attempt to assist the chair, I bring that to your attention and indicate that I'd be very happy, for myself, for Senator Storer to be given that opportunity.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick? Sorry, Senator Griff.

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

We've got to do something about it. One of us has to lose about 30 kilos, I think! Hopefully it'll be me—

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or dye your hair or something.

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

I think I'll dye my hair and lose 30 kilos over the Christmas break. Madam Acting Deputy President, I was asked to come down here in a hurry, which I did, and I too have a speech on the second reading that I would like to deliver, if that is permitted.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister?

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

In relation to the speakers, we did go straight to the summing-up speech because the other senators were not in the chamber. However, I was going to say: it's up to your discretion, but the government would be happy, if there are further comments, for that to be accommodated, if that were your call.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Senator Storer, before I ask if leave is granted for you to move your second reading amendment, the Senate must prioritise its consideration of Senator McKim's amendment, which is before me in the chamber. So the question is that Senator McKim's second reading amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move my second reading amendment, as circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) notes that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade both recommended that an independent statutory officer be appointed to support the operation of the Modern Slavery Act; and

(b) calls on the Government to appoint an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to support the operation of the Modern Slavery Act and coordinate Australia's broader response to modern slavery".

Question agreed to.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Griff, are you seeking leave to give your speech on the second reading?

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

Yes, I seek leave to make my speech on the second reading.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted? Senator Griff, could you just take your seat for a moment.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding was that Senator Griff was going to be given leave to do it in committee. That's what I understood was Senator Reynolds's position.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister?

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

I'd be very happy, and I think the government would be very happy, to accommodate those speeches in the committee stage. The government is happy to accommodate that if the opposition is, either in second reading or in committee.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Leyonhjelm?

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

I also missed my speech on the second reading because the list collapsed. I intend to give my speech on the second reading during the committee stage. It is unusual to accommodate them after the minister's summing up. I am perfectly happy to do mine during the committee stage. It makes no difference in terms of the outcome.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now that we've had that conversation around the Senate—thank you—I will put the question that the motion for the second reading, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.