Lifting Australian business ambition to combat modern slavery

Good afternoon everyone. 

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation, the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet today.

I pay my respects to Elders past and present and extend those respects to any First Nations people here today.

It is a pleasure to be here, and I thank Louise and the team at the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors for the invitation. This is a great opportunity to address a large business and investor audience. 

Modern slavery is many things. 

It is, first and foremost, a grave human rights violation. More than economic exploitation, it is the theft of liberty, of personal agency and self-determination—things most of us take for granted. In many situations, it deprives victims of the most basic essentials of life: health, social protection, the ability to be independent, the opportunity to thrive. 

That’s why modern slavery is a crime.

Forced labour, debt bondage and human trafficking are crimes in Australia and in most countries around the world. We know that key vulnerabilities include poverty, migration status, conflict and repression. All too often, the conditions that give rise to modern slavery are really about economics and the simple opportunity and motivation to profit.

Modern slavery is, therefore, also an economic issue.  

Illegal profits from forced labour are estimated at a staggering US$236 billion per year. Unscrupulous operators distort the market, add uncertainty, and ultimately have an unfair advantage when left unchecked.      

Finally, modern slavery is a business risk.

Understanding risk is good for business and good for investors. Companies asking the right questions are examining who they are doing business with; are seeking greater transparency and surety of supply; and they are asking which third-party providers are operating on their sites. Addressing material modern slavery risks adds business value.

As investors and corporate leaders, you have enormous capacity to successfully combat modern slavery. How and where you invest your resources and energy matters. Strong stewardship involves getting curious and asking not what ‘what actions you took?’, but rather, ‘what you achieved as a result of those actions?’
Action is a choice. And so is inaction. 

I want to offer a few remarks on how we can take better action in a context where forced labour risks are increasing amid a shifting geopolitical landscape. I will reflect on the review of the Australian Modern Slavery Act, where I see the opportunity for future reform, and how my Office will support those efforts. 

I should start with some details about my role.  

The reaction to my appointment from friends has been, ‘why do we need an Anti-Slavery Commissioner? We abolished slavery 200 years ago.’

I point them to recent press coverage. Of alleged deceptive recruitment of backpackers and vulnerable Australians into forced labour in the Northern Territory, the murder of a young women from Shepparton who was killed by the husband she was forced to marry, the exploitation of domestic workers in embassies and private homes in Canberra, and a State Government under investigation for potential links to forced labour in its electric bus procurement. 

Further, investigative reporting documents over 3,000 import declarations into Australia from companies with actual or extreme risk of links to state-sanctioned forced labour.

Modern slavery is happening here. It could be in your supply chains and I urge you not to ignore domestic risks.
The Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner is an independent statutory office established under the Modern Slavery Act last year.  

I am charged with supporting business action on slavery in supply chains and advocating to Government for continuous improvement in the domestic policy response. 

The Act clearly sets out the functions of the Commissioner.

The top three functions detailed in the Act are distinct to business. These are:

• to promote compliance with the Act;
• to support businesses to address the risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chain; and
• to support collaboration and engagement within and across sectors in relation to addressing modern slavery. 

Other functions of the Commissioner include supporting and engaging with victims, community awareness raising, liaising with all levels of government, and setting a research agenda. We will look to improve survivor engagement and a more central role for survivors and workers in all the work we do.

The Office has no regulatory function, nor capacity or mandate to deal with individual complaints.

Similarly, the role does not alter the responsibilities of the Attorney’s General’s Department to implement government policy and consultation.

While I am accountable to Parliament, there is a wide and diverse range of stakeholders keen to engage. 

I see the role primarily as one of advice and advocacy to support and strengthen Australia’s comprehensive response.

My challenge is to build partnerships, commit to effective action, and to help lead. 

There is no doubt that risks of forced labour are increasing.

An intensification of natural disasters and conflict are driving increased migration among some of the world's poorest communities. Displaced populations desperate for work are more vulnerable to illegal or sub-standard work – particularly for those without lawful status.

At home, large numbers of migrant workers and international students, often from lower income countries, still fear speaking out. These workers are often isolated, and lack agency, the language skills and support to seek assistance.   

We’re also witnessing a shift away from established free trade principles, and a rise in protectionism with the resulting economic dislocation.

Foreign aid is being drastically cut by a number of Governments. Just last week, the US Government directed the Bureau of International Labor Affairs to immediately cancel approximately $500 million in grants. This resulted in the termination of dozens of programs around the world aimed at preventing child labour, forced labour and human trafficking. 

This will have consequences for how businesses manage modern slavery risks.  It should also have consequences for how investors think about risks, and what they require of investees to manage such risks.  

In a time of some upheaval, it is natural to feel unsure of your response.

The business and investor responses to modern slavery must continue to anchor to 95 years established international norms and rules-based order. 

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, the Forced Labour Convention and the International Labour Organization’s core conventions set established and agreed international standards. 

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights solidified the normative due diligence framework now adopted by businesses globally. 

These conventions and principles have been repeatedly endorsed by successive Australian Governments. 
In the mid-2000’s, following high profile tragedies such as the Rana Plaza fire, discussions began on codifying obligations for business into law. The first tranche of transparency-based reporting laws requires companies to, at a minimum, disclose their modern slavery risks. The UK and Australian Modern Slavery Acts went slightly further by requesting companies to disclose the steps taken to address identified risks.  

Since the introduction of the Australian Act in 2018, the global regulatory response on human rights issues, including forced labour, has continued to evolve and strengthen. Legal frameworks in other countries are moving beyond disclosure laws towards measures that require more evidence of meaningful action. This evolution has been characterised by two distinct but mutually reinforcing streams of regulation – that is mandatory human rights due diligence and forced labour import bans.

Most recently we have seen the introduction of mandatory human rights due diligence in the European Union through the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, or ‘CSDDD’.  

The CSDDD will require some of Europe’s largest companies to carry out human rights due diligence. Its core intent is to transform accepted due diligence practices into legally binding obligations. 

Whilst a small number of Australian companies will be directly captured, many more will be impacted through their corporate structures and as suppliers to EU businesses.

Since the introduction of CSDDD, Canada, the UK and Thailand, have taken steps towards introducing similar legislation. 

What we are witnessing is the hardening of international standards and best practice into legal requirements.

Voluntary measures and superficial statements are increasingly no longer considered sufficient to address serious and systemic problems such as modern slavery. 

Regulation is seen as necessary to ensure that human rights standards are met across business – not just by the leaders but also the laggards.

The second stream of regulation we have seen emerge is laws prohibiting the import of goods made with forced labour.

Forced labour import bans were first deployed in the United States. They have since been introduced in Canada, Mexico and now in the EU, which passed its Forced Labour Regulation last year.  

Under these laws, goods suspected of being made with forced labour can be held at the border. Businesses must provide evidence that goods haven’t been made with forced labour.

In the US, where import bans have been in operation the longest, they have had significant impacts on targeted companies and key industries. There are currently 50 orders in place under the US Tariff Act preventing the importation of goods into the US, including palm oil from Malaysia, sugar from the Dominican Republic and tomatoes from Mexico.  

In addition, goods produced by over one hundred Chinese companies are prevented from entering the US in accordance with the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act entity list. As of 12th March this year, a total of US$860mil in product has been denied access to the United States. 

There is clearly an economic impact for brands and investors that are not getting this right. 

It is worth noting that those goods are free to be redirected to the Australian market.
Australian businesses are and will be increasingly affected by these international regulatory developments. I will support Australian businesses to understand and prepare for these new obligations.   

However, while we can and should learn from others, we cannot afford the ‘wait and see’ approach. Because while we wait, people are still in modern slavery. 

As Commissioner, I will be activating and advancing the debate in Australia around what we should do to strengthen our response to forced labour and modern slavery. And I will be looking to you to join that conversation to help elevate our national ambition beyond the status quo. 

Which brings me to the Australian Modern Slavery Act.  

Despite its weaknesses, the Act has undoubtedly increased awareness of modern slavery risk management in boardrooms around Australia. The Act has also driven action among a small cohort of companies that have identified, remediated and reported on modern slavery incidents in their supply chains.

However, beyond the leaders, the pace of change is slow. 

Now, in its sixth year, there is a need to level up the ambition of the Act and look beyond reporting to meaningful action. It is time to move beyond addressing risks, to reducing harm. 

Detection and remediation of modern slavery must be indicators of success. 

Business does not have to wait for legislative reform to make positive change. But the opportunity for legislative reform has been opened by Government.

In 2022 the Government commissioned Professor John McMillan to undertake an independent statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act. 

In his final report, Professor McMillan found “the widely expressed view in this review was that there is no hard evidence that the Act has caused meaningful change for people living in ... modern slavery”. 

He made 30 recommendations to make the Act more effective, and in 2024 the Government agreed or agreed in principle to 25 of these.

Most agreed recommendations were fairly uncontroversial suggestions, focusing on clearer guidance and reporting requirements.

The Government agreed in principle to introduce penalties for non-compliant businesses. These penalties would only be applied for failing to submit a statement, providing false information in a statement, or failing to comply with a request from the Minister to fix or correct a non-compliant statement. The Attorney General’s Department is scheduled to begin consultation on that issue later this year.

The two international streams of response that I discussed earlier, will also play out in Australia over coming months and years. These are McMillian’s recommendations for mandatory due diligence systems and high-risk declarations for certain regions, industries, products, or suppliers. 

First to mandatory human rights due diligence.

While the Government’s response was only to note not accept the recommendation, they did open the door for regulatory consideration. 

They acknowledged the importance of due diligence frameworks; and agreed to consult on how enhanced due diligence requirements on modern slavery would align with broader global trends towards human rights due diligence.

This is a real opportunity for investors to shape the course of this debate. Insights from across their portfolios understand how human rights due diligence is being operationalised and where it is making change.  

We need to bring forward these examples that speak to the costs; what is the business cost of inaction? Where have investors worked with companies to understand both the financial and modern slavery risk across assets and portfolios?  What outcomes have investors achieved through years of company engagement – and how has this impacted the lives of workers and added business value?  

Investors’ global and cross sector insights should help inform where systemic action ought to be taken.

As for declarations on high-risk matters.

It is important to make the distinction upfront that high-risk declarations differ from ‘import bans’. The refer to a mechanism for making written declarations that a region, industry, product or supplier is regarded as high risk. 

The Government has said it supports the development of such a mechanism, and that the Commissioner will play a key role in developing the proposal. This is consistent with my function to support Australian entities to identify and address risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains.

I am keen to get started and work with the Government on making this a useful tool for clarity and transparency on supply chain risks. In this process I will consider if companies should be required to report on the presence of high risk products or suppliers in their supply chains. I will also look to enhance transparency and the availability of customs import data to support business and government identify when high-risk products enter Australia. 

Australia has made great strides in its efforts to address modern slavery. 

We have a comprehensive national response, both domestically and in our region. 

But we have fallen behind in what is widely considered best practice regulation of business supply chains to eradicate modern slavery.  

Internationally, regulators are shifting to mandatory human rights due diligence and forced labour import bans.
Australia needs to be prepared for an evidence-based discussion on the right mechanisms to ensure Australian businesses consistently identify, address and remediate modern slavery risks. 

In getting this policy setting right, we will need to strike a balance of proportionality and good risk management.

I understand the need for a policy environment in which Directors can discharge their duties with clarity and confidence.  Uncertainty is not good for business. 

The international geopolitical environment is extremely challenging and will increase business risk. 

We can take comfort though in the established long-term commitment to drive forced labour and modern slavery from business supply chains and the breadth of that commitment. 

We have an opportunity now to contribute to a serious consideration of how to lift Australia’s regulatory response. Consideration of the use of penalties on businesses who fail to comply with current reporting requirements is imminent. 

The opportunity to lift Australia’s ambition through the introduction of due diligence requirements and high-risk declaration is an agenda that will be also front and centre.

Leadership from the business and investor community could be decisive in developing the political will to proceed.

I look forward to working with you all and I welcome ongoing engagement throughout my term.