Webinar Recording: Moving the Needle - Exploring Options for Due Diligence Laws to Combat Modern Slavery

0:0:33.469 --> 0:0:39.789 Zanetti, Lauren
Welcome everybody. We're just going to wait for one minute before we get started. It's great to see so many people joining us today.

0:1:12.189 --> 0:1:27.189 Zanetti, Lauren
OK, we might kick off. I can see we have around 90 people have already joined. Thank you everyone who's made the time for our discussion today. My name is Lauren Zanetti and I'm a Director at the Office of the Australian Anti-slavery Commissioner.

0:1:27.869 --> 0:1:44.29 Zanetti, Lauren
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that I'm dialling in from the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation and pay my respects to elders, past and present. In terms of housekeeping, this webinar is being recorded and so, at least for now, I'm going to ask our audience to all stay on mute, please.

0:1:45.429 --> 0:2:1.189 Zanetti, Lauren
So to kick off as many of you know, the Federal Attorney-General's Department has recently commenced a consultation on the potential introduction of a due diligence obligation into the Modern Slavery Act. The purpose of today's webinar is to help really set the table those consultations.

0:2:1.589 --> 0:2:33.709 Zanetti, Lauren
And we're going to explore some of the options and key areas for consideration in the design of a due diligence obligation. And, in particular, we're going to think about what do we need to think about and what will government need to think about when we're designing a due diligence reform, to ensure that it's proportionate and that it's pragmatic and it's impactful.  The office of the Australian Anti-slavery Commissioner supports the introduction of a due diligence obligation, and we're working through what we think that should look like. So, we're looking forward to the discussion today.

0:2:35.869 --> 0:2:50.189 Zanetti, Lauren
In terms of our agenda, I'm going to hand over shortly to the Commissioner, Chris Evans, for some opening remarks, and then we're going to move to a panel discussion and we've invited a range of experts to contribute their different perspectives on this topic via our panel.

0:2:50.669 --> 0:3:7.109 Zanetti, Lauren
And they are our moderator, Professor Justine Nolan, Director of the Australian Human Rights Institute at UNSW, Professor Surya Deva, Director of the Business and Human rights Access to Justice Lab at Macquarie University, Vanessa Zimmerman, CEO at Pillar 2.

0:3:7.589 --> 0:3:25.269 Zanetti, Lauren
And Shaeron Yapp, expert member of the government's Modern Slavery Advisory Group and Senior Manager, Human Rights at Rio Tinto. And we're also going to have a Q&A session at the end of the panel. So, we're going to invite you to put questions in the chat throughout the discussion, and we'll turn to them at the end.

0:3:27.229 --> 0:3:44.229 Zanetti, Lauren
This webinar also launches a discussion paper authored by Professor Deva. This paper is titled ‘Options for Action Building an effective response to modern slavery in Australia’, and this is independent research that's been commissioned by the Office and you can find a link to the paper in the chat.

0:3:44.829 --> 0:4:0.549 Zanetti, Lauren
The purpose of the papers to provide some background and analysis on international trends in responsible business conduct laws and to set out Professor Dever's views on a potential due diligence law for Australia. And that's with a view to helping inform our discussion on this topic.

0:4:1.629 --> 0:4:17.709 Zanetti, Lauren
Now we don't expect to land today on an exact answer for what a due diligence model for Australia might look like, but we do hope you're going to leave with an understanding of some of the key considerations and really better equipped for a productive discussion about this upcoming potential reform.

0:4:18.309 --> 0:4:22.309 Zanetti, Lauren
I'm now going to hand over to the Commissioner, Chris Evans, for some opening remarks.

0:4:24.149 --> 0:4:43.29 Evans, Christopher
Thanks very much, Lauren, and thank you all for joining us. It's been a terrific response and that's testament I think to Surya's paper, which I think is going to really help shape the debate. From my point of view, our Strategic Plan is titled Building Australia's Ambition and Impact. This is all about how we build that ambition and make sure that we build has real impact. 

0:5:0.463 --> 0:5:20.143 Evans, Christopher
In terms of supply chain, we think that best practice is moving to a system of mandatory due diligence. But the question is what should that look like and what are out options. And I think the paper really discusses those, and provides both the background, the analysis and the key questions that we're going to have to answer. I'm very happy for us to debate these things out. We don't have to go agree on them. What we have to do is is expose them to that sort of active consideration that.

0:5:20.383 --> 0:6:6.183 Evans, Christopher
That contest of ideas and see if we can't come up with something that works well for Australia. My view is very much though, we need a focus on the impact, not the process. How do we drive real impact? How do we make a system that's not about reporting or process, but that is about changing people’s lives? That's why we do this. If we don't actually improve and change people's lives, what's the point? That's what the system is designed to do, and we've got to make sure it does that. So, I look forward to the debate. I really appreciate your joining us and hopefully this can really take us another step forward in in making Australia's response to modern slavery much improved. Thank you.

0:6:7.783 --> 0:6:24.143 Zanetti, Lauren
Thanks so much. Chris, just before I hand over to Justine, I have noticed there's a couple of AI notes recorders that have joined the call. If possible, could you disable those? Because while we are recording, we may edit this recording just around if depending on the questions that are asked.

0:6:25.63 --> 0:6:33.23 Zanetti, Lauren
In terms of whether there's perhaps some sensitive content, so thank you for those attendees who are able to do that, Justine, I'll hand over to you.

0:6:34.183 --> 0:7:11.943 Justine Nolan
Thanks so much, Lauren, and thank you, Chris and hi to everybody. Thanks so much for joining us. It's great to be in a conversation today with Surya and Vanessa and Shae. And, as Chris mentioned, you know really the idea of this is to sort of keep socialising this idea, you know, human rights due diligence now as a concept has been around since 2011, since the guiding principles, but in many ways it's still to many a large flexible framework and people, I would say they're still probably lacking a nuanced understanding of what's required and what it might mean on the ground and in the context of Australia.

0:7:12.423 --> 0:7:47.343 Justine Nolan
And so the purpose of this discussion is to look at different approaches that might be out there to start to think about how it would apply in practise and to get some insight both on sort of theory and practise of what human rights due diligence would look like. And the reason we've gone down this road is in part because it was very clear in the review that Professor McMillan did is that, as Chris, mentioned that we've gone a long way in raising understanding about modern slavery, but we're not really moving the needle. Reporting is helping us a highlight the problem, and it's also socialised the idea within companies.

0:7:48.583 --> 0:8:6.743 Justine Nolan
But we're still seeing that the impact on the ground is delayed or quite limited. The Australian Government's consultations that are going on right now are looking at, you know, what due diligence might look like in the context of modern slavery and how we strengthen the act. And so this today, we're really trying to help people understand that.

0:8:7.383 --> 0:8:24.663 Justine Nolan
So let's start by going to Surya, who's the author of the report. Surya, you published a paper that was released yesterday that in part looks at international trends towards the introduction of human rights due diligence laws that are more robust perhaps than what we have right now.

0:8:25.143 --> 0:8:37.623 Justine Nolan
And in particular, you're starting to look at international trends where things are going. Can you tell us a little bit about that, what due diligence actually means and why you think Australia might benefit from such a law?

0:8:40.423 --> 0:9:14.703 Surya Deva
Thank you, Justine. And let me also thank Chris, Claire, Lauren and the entire team for inviting me to be part of this brainstorming and writing this paper. Let me start with the regulatory trends that are noticeable and I think there are three broad trends that we can see. These are not mutually exclusive but complemented trends. We have modern slavery legislations, we see such laws in Australia, Canada and UK and New Zealand is considering one.

0:9:15.263 --> 0:10:31.903 Surya Deva
Then the second is mandatory human rights due diligence legislation. We have at least four countries in Europe, and we are reaching kind of an agreement in CSDDD in Europe now. So definitely that is there. And the third is the import bans that exist in certain jurisdictions and again US, Canada is there, European Union is there, but we can also see this in some way in Mexico. 

So out of these, out of these three parallel complementary regulatory trends, one thing that I noticed is that human rights due diligence is the foundation. It may be explicit, but it may be implicit. So even if the modern slavery legislation like more like a reporting legislation, we cannot really do proper reporting unless human rights due diligence is done. So human rights due diligence, in my view, underpins everything that is in the space of business and human rights in terms of regulatory paradigms. Now what does it mean for Australia? How should it look like? What we look at the overseas trends is very clear that we're looking at range of risks to businesses and as well as to people and planet.

0:10:32.303 --> 0:10:49.543 Surya Deva
So it's not merely focusing on modern slavery, that is very clear. It is also clear that it is beyond reporting. So, that's where the UN guiding principles come into picture. The four-step process is there, so you need to identify risk. You need to take certain concrete actions.

0:10:49.863 --> 0:11:4.383 Surya Deva
You track your responses and then you communicate. So communication is the 4th step which is comparable to reporting legislation that we have. So, it's crucial that we take those steps. Companies do that all the time in fact.

0:11:4.943 --> 0:11:44.263 Surya Deva
And in my paper, I provide concrete examples that some of these legislations that already exist, whether this is about illegal logging, whether this is about safe workplace safety issues, or discrimination, sexual harassment at work, some elements of due diligence already there in regulatory paradigms in Australia. So, if Australia has to introduce a mandatory human rights due diligence legislation, it will not be unprecedented. Businesses are already used to that and I will also add many Austrian big businesses are already doing HRDD human rights due diligence in practise.

0:11:44.303 --> 0:11:52.703 Surya Deva
And I'm sure Vanessa and Shaeron can elaborate on that. So, I will pause here, Justine, for now. Thank you.

0:11:53.503 --> 0:12:7.303 Justine Nolan
Yeah. So, I mean what you say is interesting, when you talked about the four steps, you know, you got at the end, you basically said the step in both the UNGPs and the OECD is to communicate. And that's essentially what you're saying is required now in Australia around the reporting, correct?

0:12:8.383 --> 0:12:24.143 Surya Deva
Yeah. So, so Australia has the 4th step, but they are not insisting on the first, second and third step. So, what I'm saying is that you are skipping those crucial elements, right? One cannot meaningfully report unless one is meaningfully conducting human rights due diligence.

0:12:24.423 --> 0:12:30.263 Surya Deva
And there is participation and consultation with the relevant stakeholders. That's what I'm suggesting, yeah.

0:12:30.263 --> 0:12:55.703 Justine Nolan
Yeah, exactly. And then what you're also saying now and in the report is that this is actually not a new concept for many businesses because to develop a robust reporting requirement, the businesses who are doing it well have already done those other three steps. So, in many cases, this has been implied because business want to get to that end of reporting and do it well, so they're they are in fact doing due diligence, even if they, you know, are not naming it as such with that.

0:12:54.703 --> 0:13:23.303 Surya Deva
Yes, in my view, they're already doing it. That is the practice. But if you look at the legislation, the illegal logging legislation is 2012. So we had it more than 10 years due diligence concept and I think some of these legislations were in my view, at least, we're not even impressed by UN guiding principles. So what I'm trying to suggest here is that due diligence idea or human rights due diligence is not new, it is there, it's very much entrenched.

0:13:24.463 --> 0:13:54.863 Justine Nolan
OK, so Vanessa, given this concept that you think you know for many people, they may actually be doing it already, even if they don't know they're doing it. If I say to you, you know, just say you're working as a sustainability practitioner in a business and you're briefing your leadership that, you know it might be coming down, that we're going to have new laws, you know, focused on modern slavery, for example in Australia, that required due diligence, how would you explain to them why this is a good thing, but why it might be challenging and what would you be advising them to do to prepare?

0:13:55.703 --> 0:15:9.463 Vanessa Zimmerman
Thanks, Justine, and thanks for having me. I think it's really important to ground these conversations in very practical terms and some may laugh on this call, but not at me for saying this, but not to use jargon. I think sometimes we think that senior leaders and executive committee members and board members are as familiar with modern slavery and broader human rights terms as we are, and we know that that's not the case. So, I think to be very practical.  In terms of the benefits themselves, I'll just cover three really quickly. The 1st is that a due diligence law could actually have commercial and competitive benefits for Australian companies that are operating in or selling into international markets or supplying to global companies. We know that it is very clear from Surya's report that there are countries around the world that already do have these laws in place or are thinking about them in our region as well. South Korea is contemplating mandatory human rights due diligence and so Australian companies that are able to better show those companies that they're working with, that they understand what human rights to diligence is, and they're managing their risks and they can use the language that is in those other laws as well could be very helpful. And so if we do see that language coming into a modern slavery diligence requirement, that could be helpful in that regard.

0:15:9.983 --> 0:16:5.103 Vanessa Zimmerman
The second benefit is that it could really help to level the playing field. I know it can sound very cliched, but when you have companies that are doing a lot of work to manage their modern slavery risks, and as Surya said are already implementing due diligence and others are not, it can be very frustrating and it can be quite difficult as well for corporate customers, for investors, for civil society organisations, to actually have a common reference point to go from, and that's what due diligence requirement could do. The last reason, which is the most important, is that obviously this could help companies to actually manage their modern slavery risks. And as Chris said, lead to change in the lives of the people that we're hoping to help. There are a variety of legal, reputational, operational risks as well that companies can help manage if they are adequately preventing and addressing their modern slavery risks, and hopefully that modern slavery due diligence requirement would actually help in that regard.

0:16:5.503 --> 0:17:5.103 Vanessa Zimmerman
In terms of the challenges, I think it is very important to address these head on. If you're sitting in a board meeting and you don't answer a Director's question when they're expressing concern about additional regulation or whether the law will be nuanced enough to account for differences between sectors or consequences for non-compliance and you don't have a good answer. I don't think that will get very far. And so I think it is important to highlight as both of you have said, this is not a new concept. We've seen many Australian companies already doing this for a long time. We expect that this would be a risk-based approach which means that we expect to see a requirement that is asking companies to focus on the areas where the risk of their involvement in modern slavery would be the most likely and the most severe, if we were following other models. That would mean as well that that companies that are in higher risk sectors would probably have a slightly different approach to companies in other sectors. 

0:17:5.183 --> 0:17:11.223 Vanessa Zimmerman
And also that you wouldn't be expected to look in the same way at every single supplier in your value chain, so I think.

0:17:10.983 --> 0:17:20.303 Justine Nolan
And Vanessa, can I just jump in there? When you say risk-based approach because the big thing about human rights due diligence is about risk to people, right? So how do you action that lens to the board?

0:17:20.823 --> 0:17:59.863 Vanessa Zimmerman
Yes, absolutely. So, I think I would usually talk to the board about both types, about risk to people and risk to business and explain that these days where there is a significant risk to people, there is a significant possibility that risk to business will flow from that because of these new laws we're seeing because of the reputational risks because of financial institutions and investors and others customers starting to ask questions about this. There are examples at the moment of customers, in particular writing to their suppliers and asking some really tricky questions about these types of issues, especially where there are NGO campaigns in place.

0:17:59.943 --> 0:18:17.863 Vanessa Zimmerman
So it's important to explain that and for many of these companies, they have publicly committed to follow the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD guidelines and other standards, which all have very clear language in there about risk to people. So hopefully explaining that and also sometimes.

0:18:18.263 --> 0:18:37.863 Vanessa Zimmerman
Providing very clear case studies or examples of how people can actually be impacted and bringing it to life for them as well. Just super quickly in terms of how to prepare. I think there are probably 3 steps that hopefully could be a practical idea for people. 

0:18:38.623 --> 0:19:34.223 Vanessa Zimmerman
The 1st is to have an actual honest internal cross functional conversation about what the company's modern slavery risks are at the moment, what they're doing, what the company's doing about it, and what their gaps are. We have five years or more for some companies of preparing their modern slavery statements. We would hope that sitting behind that, even if it doesn't always make it into the modern slavery statement, is a fairly robust idea about what is not happening. And so to have a conversation about what might need to be done to comply. The 2nd is to talk to investors and external stakeholders to actually understand what they would want to see if the law came in, and to understand where they think the business might be might be falling short and I know those conversations can be tricky, but they are helpful. And the last one is just to look at what else is being done around climate, around anti corruption, what conversations are already been having. We don't need to fully reinvent the wheel here. We can use some of those existing systems in place.

0:19:35.23 --> 0:19:54.383 Justine Nolan
Terrific. Thanks, Vanessa. That's great. Shae, given what you've heard so far and as a practitioner in the mining and energy sector, can you give us potentially, you know, a practical perspective, how are you doing it? You know what, what sort of principles are you following to do due diligence? Are you doing due diligence and you know what's your guiding approach to it?

0:19:56.583 --> 0:20:12.703 Shae
Thanks Justine. As a starting point, I'm actually calling in from a sabbatical and I would say human rights is actually quite, you know, it's not actually a complex system, but it's hard work. So just practitioner, those that are on a call today at 5:00 PM just before Christmas.

0:20:13.143 --> 0:20:32.783 Shae
Do make sure that you're finding time to rest and fill up your cup because this, this this work exactly so you know, encouraging those exactly. But I joke but I also think it's important for those that are in the sustainability space because this is the long game and you need to pace yourselves.

0:20:17.783 --> 0:20:23.103 Justine Nolan
As you are doing on sabbatical right now, but your background looks very restful.

0:20:34.103 --> 0:21:21.903 Shae
But when I just thought very quickly about three principles where I've seen people in businesses go aha, I get it, you know, or where I've seen due diligence be most effective, it's that common theme of, firstly, demystify, keep it simple, and don't use the academic terminology that we've heard a couple people mention today. Often when I start training, I'll say to the teams in the room. Might you be doing human rights due diligence without even realising it, and that already starts to create a sense of ownership with teams that are sitting in the room going, oh OK, this person from Central Group is not going to come and give me more work or you know more things to do. And it starts the conversation to look at work that they're doing every day and go. Is there a tweak that I can make or is there a blind spot, a complete blind spot that I've missed?

0:21:24.263 --> 0:21:40.23 Shae
So first and foremost, just avoid inventing sort of parallel processes, and I think one of the reasons and the power of this concept is that human rights due diligence is just as much about the systems and the processes as it is about culture.

0:21:40.623 --> 0:22:0.263 Shae
Culture a way of thinking about it, is the roots to human rights due diligence. You could have the best policies and processes in the world, but if you haven't changed people's mindsets and hearts and you know the understanding of the why, unfortunately I don't see that that sort of those sorts of initiatives last. So, it's like growing a tree without investing in the roots of things. The things you can't see. 

0:22:0.343 --> 0:23:31.663 Shae
On that sort of theme of roots, a sort of second key principle that I like to focus on is that we'll never end modern slavery if we just treat the symptoms alone. You know, the underpayment of wages, the withholding of passports. You have to go to those root cause issues of poverty, inequality, corruption, lack of opportunity. That's why you know when we look, what has Surya said. There's other laws that already exist. These are concepts I think we fundamentally get. And so we need to start looking at human rights due diligence as the other side of the coin to development, they are inseparable and it's our opportunity and our responsibility as businesses to really, you know if we if we drill it down to be creating safe, decent and Fair Work catalysing you know, small businesses and emerging markets to be able to have not only profitable businesses, but ones that have really good human resources systems, ones that just know fundamentally, if you put your workforce first, you're going to have a Better Business for the long run. And then the final quick point that I would just say is the work that you know I've been proudest of when I look back is when it's just, you know it comes back to those conversations, whether it's sitting in outside of a canteen on some plastic chairs talking to some women about conditions on site or a formal process where you can have an interview with a worker on a supplier factory floor, or even a workshop where you've got a mix of functional people sitting in there and they feel safe to share those reflections.

0:23:32.143 --> 0:23:51.823 Shae
That is where human rights due diligence and cuts through the complexity of operating it. It's like asking those basic questions, who's doing the work, where are they doing the work? What are the conditions and most importantly, what are we doing about it? And I find when you drill it down to that and you just always try and find the best ways to get straight to the heart of speaking to rights holders. That's where you'll see the most effective due diligence really land and last.

0:23:57.63 --> 0:24:14.623 Justine Nolan
Thanks so much. So I think what the sort of the takeaway I got from that was you know the first one was around it's about having processes and policy in place, but human rights due diligence is much more, than that. In particular, you've got to figure out how you're having impact and measuring impact and outcomes.

0:24:14.943 --> 0:24:34.623 Justine Nolan
You know, just having a policy is not the end game. That's one of the action points along the way. The second one is that human rights due diligence as an overarching theme has really got to be identifying root causes. So not treating symptoms, but digging down as to why did workers pay a recruitment fee, how did it happen? You know, why is it there? Is it something about the business model?

0:24:34.863 --> 0:24:51.23 Justine Nolan
That is contributing to that and the third one is I think around meaningful engagement. And so it might be with rights holders, it might be with other stakeholders, but it's trying to cut through that and get to you know what engagement looks like on the ground and we can come back to some more questions around that.

0:24:52.663 --> 0:25:6.63 Justine Nolan
So just a reminder to everyone, if you'd like to put questions in the chat, we'll take them in a in a few moments when we get to the end of the panel discussion. And if you like particular questions in the chat, please feel free to like them and I'll work so we can find them.

0:25:6.783 --> 0:25:25.823 Justine Nolan
But Surya coming back to you for a second, the content of the paper, can you just give us a little, you know, sort of a brief outline around what were you saying with the key elements that we need to consider if in Australia we're thinking about what a human rights due diligence more law might look like. And I know it might be sort of high level, but what are the key elements of what a law should focus on?

0:25:30.903 --> 0:25:49.903 Surya Deva
Thanks, Justine. I think let me start by saying this that in my view, status quo is not an option. That's why the paper is titled Options for Action. So action is needed and I think this action has to be in the form of making human rights due diligence mandatory. In my view, I think from my perspective that is given.

0:25:50.543 --> 0:26:8.303 Surya Deva
Because that is the root in terms of how the regulatory paradigms are emerging in this particular field. I think Australia needs to consider the overseas experiences and make a calibrated decision in terms of where the regulation should go.

0:26:9.143 --> 0:26:26.23 Surya Deva
They are a number of discussion points and let me try to highlight some of these. I will not mention everything that I write in the paper.  First is about the scope and the coverage of legislation, and there is an inverse relationship between the scope and coverage. Let me highlight.

0:26:26.583 --> 0:27:1.503 Surya Deva
If the scope is narrow, let us say the law is focusing merely on modern slavery. Then it can cover a larger size of companies like it can cover a whole lot of companies. On the other hand, if the law is going to apply to labour rights and all human rights issues, including environmental pollution, then it is likely to have a narrower coverage, and it would only apply to very, very large companies. My personal view is that it should start with little wider scope because that is what the trend is.

0:27:1.863 --> 0:27:36.703 Surya Deva
Rather than merely focusing on modern slavery, and it can focus on large companies, let's say current threshold is 100 million, so it can start with around that slab, but go definitely beyond modern slavery. And in my paper, I highlight if it does not cover let's say all human rights. It should at least cover modern slavery, plus. That basically means all other issues of labour rights and human rights that are closely connected to modern slavery because it is impractical for businesses to do HRDD merely on modern slavery risk because the risks are intertwined.

0:27:37.543 --> 0:27:53.503 Surya Deva
That's my first point and I think that's where the phased in approach is always possible. So you can start with large companies and after two years you may relax it and lower the threshold. I think that's experience we can see elsewhere. Germany for instance is like that.

0:27:54.183 --> 0:28:12.983 Surya Deva
The second is that the law has to impose specific obligations, and I think that is where the four step HRDD processes is very crucial. That is a preventive step. But the law also needs to provide for redressive step. That's where access to remedy will become relevant.

0:28:13.383 --> 0:28:31.543 Surya Deva
That's where the obligation to establish an operational level grievance mechanism may become relevant, and these could be done differently. For instance, companies may also come together and establish a grievance mechanism collectively. Whether that could be for an industry also. So there are different possibilities.

0:28:31.863 --> 0:28:47.103 Surya Deva
How this can be done? And I think that is where what Chris was saying earlier impact becomes relevant. So it's not merely about the process. HRDD is often seen as a process and and it is a process, but the process is not for the sake of it.

0:28:47.743 --> 0:29:7.303 Surya Deva
It has to make some difference in the lives of rights holders and I think that is where businesses need to have meaningful engagement in this all four stages of human rights due diligence, workers are crucial. Trade unions are crucial. Civil society organisations are crucial external.

0:29:7.383 --> 0:29:25.223 Surya Deva
Experts are crucial, so all these stakeholders have to be meaningfully consulted and these could be the eyes and ears of businesses to provide those risks. And that's how the businesses can identify and mitigate and prevent those risk, and that is going to be very, very crucial, in my view.

0:29:26.463 --> 0:29:42.23 Surya Deva
I think someone already mentioned it, the due diligence we're talking about, it should not be limited by any tiers, but it has to be risk based and that is where the high risk sectors of course would have to be doing more than otherwise.

0:29:42.703 --> 0:30:2.23 Surya Deva
But we can also think that a sector may not be high risk. But if a company is operating in a high-risk location, then also the due diligence has to be of a higher level risk, you know, so it's not merely that you can target merely high risk sectors and ignore rest of it because the risks are dynamic.

0:30:2.543 --> 0:30:17.223 Surya Deva
They evolve, they can change and that's why companies have to be responsive to the risks that are evolving on an ongoing basis. So I think these are things that I want to mention out of the paper rather than covering everything. Thank you.

0:30:19.783 --> 0:30:35.823 Justine Nolan
Thanks so much. So, Vanessa, coming back to you for a second. Surya has talked about sort of the key elements of due diligence laws and that might operate in Australia and we know that as he mentioned earlier, this is relevant to global trends this week we've seen action.

0:30:36.383 --> 0:31:6.503 Justine Nolan
Again, from the EU, with the Omnibus Directive and the latest changes that have been negotiated still going through a process, but we've seen changes, there's a couple of questions in the chat around the relevance of the decision by the EU in terms of scaling back the corporate sustainability due diligence directive in terms of its scope and potential enforcement but, it still requires due diligence. They haven't got away with due diligence. So can you talk a little bit about the attention that's being focused on that and the relevance here?

0:31:7.303 --> 0:31:26.343 Vanessa Zimmerman
Sure, it's been a very busy week. If people are watching this on LinkedIn, I feel like if you miss 10 minutes then you miss another development that's going on here and don't ask me to explain that the trilogue of negotiations and all the different EU bodies, but in terms of what we're saying, you're right.

0:31:27.343 --> 0:31:46.783
Vanessa Zimmerman
There is a more limited scope now, so we're seeing that around 1500 companies will probably be caught by what we call CSDDD so the corporate sustainability due diligence directive. That would cover both EU and non EU companies. But they have slightly different thresholds. And as Surya was saying, we'll have to think about what might be appropriate here.

0:31:47.343 --> 0:32:4.63 Vanessa Zimmerman
To Surya’s point, the CSDDD is a basically an EU wide mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence law, so it is going beyond modern slavery beyond other labour rights to all internationally recognised human rights impacts that a company could have.

0:32:4.903 --> 0:33:4.463 Vanessa Zimmerman
What we're seeing is that at the moment the current draft and as Justine said, we might still see a little bit of change, but hopefully we're almost there, does still require human rights due diligence. So for better or worse, it is still there. There is some alignment I am not going to say there's complete alignment, with the UN guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other international business and human rights standards that companies might be following, but it is still requiring human rights due diligence, it's still requiring a risk based approach, which did disappear for a little bit, but seems to be back there, which means that companies will be asked to look at the places in their value chain. And it's not just direct suppliers, but across their mainly their upstream supply chain, their upstream value chain, some downstream as well, but they're being asked to look at where the risks of involvement in human rights harm might be the most likely and where they might be the most severe.

0:33:4.543 --> 0:33:24.223 Vanessa Zimmerman. 

So it's picking up on that. It's also picking up on the expectations in the UN guiding principles and both Surya and Shae talked about this of actually speaking to stakeholders, speaking to rights holders like workers and communities and consumers in different parts of the human rights diligence process. So it's good that, is there even if it's not as robust as we might have liked to see it.

0:33:24.543 --> 0:33:44.423 Vanessa Zimmerman
In relation to the four steps of due diligence that Surya was talking about before, we are seeing that various elements of those are in the CSDDD so the first is that the risk assessment part, which is that companies will be expected to do.

0:33:44.583 --> 0:34:4.183 Vanessa Zimmerman
Basically a two stage risk assessment, so they'll need to do an initial scoping exercise based on reasonably available information of general risk areas where impacts are most likely to occur and to be the most severe, and then they'll have to do a more detailed assessment of the key risks. Again, looking at what's most likely and what's most.

0:34:4.383 --> 0:34:40.943 Vanessa Zimmerman
And for those on the line that have looked at their salient human rights risks, that's basically the concept that's there. What's a little bit interesting out of this is that there is some discouragement of companies to basically ask suppliers for information where they could get that information from somewhere else and to make sure that it's necessary to ask suppliers for those bits of information in order to kind of obtain accurate and reliable information. There's also a new provision in there, and we're not sure if this will change. 

0:34:41.103 --> 0:34:58.623 Vanessa Zimmerman
That says that if a supplier has less than 5000 employees a company is encouraged not to engage with that supplier unless the data can't be obtained in another way. So you could look at that in a very negative way because we know that the companies actually do need to speak to their suppliers to figure out what's going on and as part of due diligence. 

0:34:59.143 --> 0:35:13.263 Vanessa Zimmerman
But you can also look at the fact that this might encourage companies to think a little bit more deeply about how they are engaging with suppliers and make sure that they're doing it in a way that actually is meaningful. But we'll see how all of that plays out. 

0:35:11.183 --> 0:35:27.503 Justine Nolan
So just on that, Vanessa, it's just sorry, just before you go there because one of the questions in the chat was around, you know, a lot of people for now due diligence means just sending a survey to suppliers. So in some way it's positive, right, because it's trying to say, hey, stop and think about what you're actually doing and just overburdening suppliers and how you can do it better.

0:35:28.23 --> 0:35:47.823 Vanessa Zimmerman
Exactly. And so just sending a questionnaire that has 50 questions on it that are very difficult to answer that are not really going to get you the information that you want and that you possibly could have found otherwise is probably not going to be acceptable anymore. And so hopefully, we'll see companies, companies think about this in a in a more thoughtful way and in a more meaningful way.

0:35:48.23 --> 0:36:7.903 Vanessa Zimmerman
So we'll see. And then just really quickly, the other elements that Surya was talking about, there are requirements in CSDDD to actually of course manage the risks that you see, whether it's looking at prevention, action plans, contractual steps, other actions to actually make sure that once they find the risks that they're doing something about it

0:36:8.503 --> 0:36:28.343 Vanessa Zimmerman

There's requirements in there to track your effectiveness, which is one of the other elements that Surya was talking about, including using qualitative and quantitative data through periodic assessments. And companies would have to do that every five years. And there's also something in there around remediation. 

0:36:28.503 --> 0:36:42.663 Vanessa Zimmerman
Again, there were stronger elements the past, but there is arguably still a requirement that companies would have to actually remediate for adverse impacts, especially where they have caused those impacts. So at least we've got those elements in there.

0:36:43.743 --> 0:37:15.503 Vanessa Zimmerman
We'll see what Australia would decide to take or leave from that, but we do think that there will be some pressure from for some alignment with the key elements there. Even if the Aussie requirement is just based on modern slavery, because we hear a lot of board members and executives talking about a spaghetti soup of regulation and the difficulties of complying with different bits of regulation, and so at least if any, due diligence requirement we had aligned with the UN guiding principles and took on key elements of the CSDDD that would be positive to see.

0:37:16.903 --> 0:37:35.503 Justine Nolan
Thanks, Vanessa. And I know that's not an easy summary to give because it literally is just coming in sort of overnight and we're still at a stage where this has come out, but there's still a final acceptance to happen. But that's the compromise text, which you can find all over the web at the moment and I think we'll start to see more analysis of it next week.

0:37:35.943 --> 0:37:55.743 Justine Nolan
But for those who are sort of seeing it as, oh, human rights due diligence has gone out the window, that's basically not the story that the EU is telling us. There's different parts of it. They're scaling back, they're delaying start dates. They're narrowing the scope of it. We'll come to obligations and enforcements in the general questions in a little bit. 

0:37:55.863 --> 0:38:12.383 Justine Nolan
So it doesn't look like what it looked like in 2024, but the core elements essentially of human rights, due diligence that was set out in the UNGPs are still in there. And so that's something that's important to think about. Last question to Shay and then we're going to have, we'll pick up some of the questions from the chat and we'll have them open up the discussion.

0:38:13.543 --> 0:38:25.583 Justine Nolan
Given everything you've heard both from a practical and the sort of the legal perspective around it from a business perspective, what should we be thinking about with crafting due diligence legislation in Australia?

0:38:27.783 --> 0:38:44.223 Shae
Thanks, Justine. I'd say two things, clarity and flexibility from a business perspective. So the first thing on clarity, you know, we've heard this a few times already. If you are already doing what the modern Slavery Act asks you to do.

0:38:44.623 --> 0:39:2.263 Shae
And not just treating it as a tick box exercise. You are doing mandatory modern slavery, human rights, due diligence. It won't be something new. So I'd encourage any of the businesses that are maybe grappling with this terminology or you know, the overwhelm of the changing of the CSDDD and all these sort of things.

0:39:2.743 --> 0:39:20.703 Shae
Don't be scared of the Australian government moving towards. You know we should be actually supporting as business community the introduction of mandatory human rights, due diligence laws and the reason why I say actually it would, you know, be in favour for many businesses, that type of clarity and reframing the laws just as Surya said.

0:39:21.143 --> 0:39:39.703 Shae
You know the writing of the statement is step four, and if you don't, then have the business understanding, you know with clarity from regulators that there's actually steps 1, 2 and three to get to step four, it actually makes your job as a practitioner in the company a little bit more difficult or challenging to continually have that debate.

0:39:40.583 --> 0:39:59.943 Shae
So, you know, reframing it to be what it actually says it is, which is encouraging business, doing mandatory human rights due diligence. But actually I think bring a lot of clarity to this conversation rather than what you know may happen in a lot of companies is this last minute Sprint at the end of reporting season tonight throw together a statement and.

0:40:0.143 --> 0:40:19.703 Shae
We all know how time consuming writing the statements are and it can really start to, you know, put a lot of pressure on the business because we haven't treated it as what it's designed to be, which is an ongoing continual process of due diligence and that conversation that should be had all throughout the year with the business rather than a really intense but at the end of a reporting cycle

0:40:19.903 --> 0:40:38.223 Shae

We're all too busy doing a million other things as well. So it sort of comes back to, I think someone mentioned the cost conversation. Now that's when you really start to see the cost start to really escalate at recording season. You've got consultants and assurance and you've got data platforms that you're subscribing to.

0:40:38.743 --> 0:40:54.543 Shae
I'd actually sort of sort of like strip that back if we focus too much on those sorts of costs, we're kind of missing the bigger point where we sometimes joke in our human rights collaborative group here in Perth that the cost of doing human rights is the cost of a human rights practitioner salary.

0:40:55.383 --> 0:41:12.583 Shae
And then the value that you could unlock is like because you're actually. If you're doing it right, you're using other people's business systems, other people's processes, and that's how I think you're going to get the more effective embedding of that rather than the focus of like, very sort of binary concepts of cost.

0:41:12.903 --> 0:41:28.303 Shae
But I think it's a bit of an artificial conversation because as we've also said, the value of this is reduced disruption, the enhanced visibility, the improved collaboration with the suppliers, the unlocked innovation. So I think encourage people to look at costs a little bit differently in in this.

0:41:28.983 --> 0:41:48.503 Shae
I always like to focus the conversation back on value and then very quickly because I know we want to free up time for questions. But the second point I'll just make is flexibility. We do need regulators and civil society and businesses who are advocating for these laws to really stick to sort of that messaging of risk based approaches.

0:41:48.583 --> 0:42:23.943 Shae
I think the 2nd that we overcomplicate this and we try to get too clever with laws or too prescriptive. I think that would just stifle again the innovation and the opportunity for businesses to really to embed the UNGPs because the UNGPs really ask you to look at your business, your sector, the stage of the operational cycle that you're doing as a company and you'll leverage and prioritise your risks. So I think legislation that could really allow for that, tailoring with accountability and I'll let other panel members speak to that. 

0:42:24.383 --> 0:42:27.343 Shae
I think we'll really actually see the impact of human rights due diligence land.

0:42:28.703 --> 0:43:7.303 Justine Nolan
Thanks. I mean, what I take away from this discussion so far and I think we haven't said explicitly so much, I think which was raised by Fuzz in the in the chat, is that human rights due diligence when done well is primarily about prevention. It's about dealing with an issue before it arises. It's having the systems, the policies, the practises in place that you are ready, that you're basically finding risk. You're dealing with it before things get a lot worse and so of course it involves processes where harms arise. Then there's a process for remediation around that. But I think it's also from a business perspective, it's really important to think about efficiency around this is that you're trying.

0:43:7.423 --> 0:43:26.863 Justine Nolan
To put in place a business-as-usual process that focuses on preventing harm to people, which brings me to the very first question that was put in the chat by Freya around making sure that modern slavery risk becomes part of a business-as-usual approach, Freya. Normally we'll just go through the questions, but you were first. 

0:43:26.983 --> 0:43:31.183 Justine Nolan
So you get special privileges. Do you want to just unmute yourself and just explain a little bit more about your comment?

0:43:32.903 --> 0:43:48.463 Freya Dinshaw
Sure. Thanks, Justine. And thank you so much to all the panellists for all your insights on this topic. So, we know that Australians expect businesses not to be profiting from modern slavery, and that transparency has played a really important role so far. But it has only taken us to a certain point.

0:43:48.823 --> 0:44:28.463 Freya Dinshaw
And in my comment in the chat, I've noted that we've already made this shift to due diligence in a number of other laws in the last few years, and we've seen that it's effective in shifting corporate culture and leading to better outcomes for people, particularly where it's a risk based approach and in many of these regimes, the government has had to play a really important role in providing guidance around what this looks like to support businesses to be able to do that while also ensuring that there's enforcement. And so businesses feel comfortable to take the steps they need to do to address the problem. And just as as an example, you know, a decade ago, I think paying bribes was sort of seen as part and parcel of doing business in certain places. 

0:44:28.823 --> 0:44:46.543 Freya Dinshaw
And today, you know, every business has their standard cheques and balances to make sure that they're not associated with bribery, and there are serious consequences. So we've kind of done this before. We've seen at work in practise, and we should use the opportunity to bring them on slavery, act in line with some of the other risk based due diligence approaches that we have here in Australia. Thank you.

0:44:47.743 --> 0:45:7.223 Justine Nolan
Thanks, Freya. And there's another question building on that. There's another question in that chat around. If we've already got, you know, if there's similar laws elsewhere or laws in Australia around data collection and evidence gathering that is trying to standardise this approach. Surya in your paper, sort of what lessons did you learn about, you know what we're already doing?

0:45:7.343 --> 0:45:24.383 Justine Nolan
How we transfer that to this, you know, sort of new area as such so that we're not creating, you know starting something from scratch and a question that's coming up in the chatter a little bit is about how much then we're pushing this down to suppliers and increasing the burden on them by adding due diligence to the mix.

0:45:26.863 --> 0:45:46.143 Surya Deva
Several things, Justine, but let me start with what Shay was saying earlier about flexibility. I think we should not interpret flexibility to mean that it is free for all businesses that they can do whatever they want, by flexibility, I believe Sharon was trying to say that it is this is the proportionality.

0:45:48.943 --> 0:46:8.263 Surya Deva
It will depend upon the sector, the size of the company, the nature of the risk and other factors like what is steps are needed and that is also inbuilt into UN guiding principles. So, I wanted to make that observation now in relation to what lessons we can draw from overseas. I think one lesson is that.

0:46:9.23 --> 0:46:27.303 Surya Deva
It is unrealistic to impose mandatory due diligence obligation on all businesses, and I think that's where we cannot completely copy and paste Pillar 2 into the legal regulation. In my view, that's where they CSDDD All the legislation are targeting large businesses.

0:46:27.903 --> 0:46:45.623 Surya Deva
And I think that's where we should be starting in Australia as well. And then slowly that group could be expanded. That's where the phased approach may work. The other thing is that if we just start on modern slavery, not an ideal situation.

0:46:46.463 --> 0:47:5.783 Surya Deva
Because if you look at the other mandatory duties legislation, they are broader than modern slavery because practical terms, you just don't dive into the swimming pool and find a ring, even if you want to find a ring in a swimming pool, you will find many other things in that process. So, are you going to ignore?

0:47:5.863 --> 0:47:42.423 Surya Deva
All the other things that you find, I think that is that is what the practical aspect we need to consider the second. The third thing I would like to mention is co-creation. Businesses need to learn from peers. What are the challenges? What are the good practises and they also need to co-create solutions working with civil society organisations with trade unions, with workers, with academics, with other experts, so it is not an adversarial process, in my view. Rather we are working together, building alliances and moving forward towards the common goal that we need to achieve.

0:47:42.903 -->0:48:17.623 Surya Deva
And I think that's where something we have not enough discussed is responsiveness becomes crucial. If there is small and medium sized enterprises, we need to ensure that there is no burden passed on to them because there's a risk in any due diligence legislation, is there that you're passing the burden or you're de-risking. So we need to mitigate against those risks. In my view, Justine and I think that's where capacity building, sharing good practises and the office of the Office of the Anti-Slavery Commission providing guidance that how to do it, those tools will become very, very Crucial based on the overseas experiences as well.

0:48:21.103 --> 0:48:27.903 Justine Nolan
Shae, did he correctly paraphrase you, or you're unhappy about that interpretation from an academic perspective, 'cause, I noticed that you said that earlier.

0:48:28.743 --> 0:48:32.343 Shae
Spot on? Love it. That is exactly what I meant. Thanks, Surya.

0:48:31.543 --> 0:48:37.663 Justine Nolan
Sometimes academics have utility good work Surya. 

0:48:35.623 --> 0:49:12.63 Surya Deva
There's also a question there's a question about CSDDD, I don't know if anyone else wants to respond to that, there's an interesting question about CSDDD that how do we interpret the scaling back of the CSDDD and I will just add very briefly a comment on that. In my paper, I talk about the inverse relationship between in the scope and the coverage, because CSDDD is very wide, it is not merely modern slavery. It covers all labour rights. It cover all human rights, it covers environmental rights. So scope is extremely wide and because it is extremely wide.

0:49:12.623 --> 0:49:42.583 Surya Deva
It is justified, in my view, to have a high or very limited coverage, because under the proposed is €1.5 billion and 5000 employees, that is there. So I think I will not interpret. This is scaling back that this is regressive necessarily, because the scope is very wide. It can be justified not an ideal situation, but it can be justified because this practical step. But in future this can be then expanded to other smaller companies. Thank you.

0:49:43.743 --> 0:50:3.223 Justine Nolan
So I want to move on to two topics that are coming up in the question in the chat. One is around and I'm going to go to you to 1st Vanessa ones around Okay. Practically, if you're you know, we're saying do this and talk to your suppliers if you're working in an industry which is largely monopoly and we know there's a lot of forced labour in it, what are the challenges? How do we think about due diligence in that?

0:50:3.863 --> 0:50:22.863 Justine Nolan
And then the second ones that are coming up a little bit are around what would a law in Australia for example have to do in order to actually move the needle and encourage companies to do this? What sort of is the enforcement options I'll throw to you first? Sorry, but I also want to come back to you, Shae, about from a business perspective. You know, what is it? Do you need fines?

0:50:23.63 --> 0:50:31.823 Justine Nolan
Do you need other things that would that would make a company take this seriously? So, Vanessa, first, what's a a practical, some practical considerations? If it's in a monopoly industry?

0:50:32.903 --> 0:51:11.303 Vanessa Zimmerman
That's a really good question and we do know that there are various sectors where there are very high risks of being involved in modern slavery and it's very difficult to do as much due diligence or as many checks and assessments as you would actually want to do because you can't get down on the ground in certain locations of a certain sectors or there's, you know, monopolies or difficulties like that. What a due diligence requirement would ensure or would require of companies is that they at least are aware of that are looking at showing what they're doing about that. 

0:51:11.743 --> 0:51:31.463 Vanessa Zimmerman
The UN guiding principles on business and human rights have guidance around where you do have a critical supplier or business partner that it is, you know, a crucial business partner that you just can't walk away from that you at least understand how you could be involved in modern slavery or other human rights impacts through your relationship with them and what ongoing mitigation, mitigating steps you could be taking and to understand the risks that you might face of maintaining that relationship with them.

0:51:31.703 --> 0:52:11.503 Vanessa Zimmerman

And, so what we're hoping is that if there was a due diligence requirement in place, then at least those companies that are operating in those sectors would have to be taking those steps. It wouldn't be a situation where they're not looking or they're not understanding and be able to have conversations with their stakeholders, their investors, their customers, workers and others about what they're actually doing. I also think that this is where guidance comes in. We will, if we had a modern slavery due diligence requirement in the act that would be written in a certain way. It's not a complete playbook and we'd need guidance from the government and I think.

0:52:11.543 --> 0:52:29.743 Vanessa Zimmerman
That there could be all sorts of conversations that could be happening. We just saw this week some more guidance from the ACCC and a big thank you to Chris and his team for really helping to bring that along that I think that is where some of those sector discussions were hopefully that they can occur in a space that's not going to attract.

0:52:30.183 --> 0:52:45.543 Vanessa Zimmerman
Attract competition concerns about what to do in those sectors where we're seeing very high risks and when we might think that there are, in addition to company action, we also need to see government action and another collective action because it's impossible to fix those sectors just by one company.

0:52:46.503 --> 0:53:6.423 Justine Nolan
Perfect. Thanks. So we're not going to have be able to delve into the intricacies of enforcement and there's a lot of information in Surya's paper around that. But Surya from your perspective, what do you think in terms of enforcement is needed and shave then from your perspective, what do you think business will best respond to if we had a requirement to conduct human rights due diligence laws?

0:53:10.503 --> 0:53:25.343 Surya Deva
I think what we need is a combination of incentives and disincentives. If I could frame it this way, we need to encourage businesses to find, let's say, potentially damaging things, because if we create a live.

0:53:24.503 --> 0:53:27.63 Justine Nolan
And normalise that. Normalise that finding.

0:53:27.303 --> 0:53:46.263 Surya Deva
Yes, normalise it, right? Because it's not perfect world, right? So if you find situations of environmental pollution, gender discrimination, child labour, not an ideal situation. But if you find it, that is a good sign. In fact, if you don't find it, that should be a red flag because you are missing something there.

0:53:46.583 --> 0:54:6.223 Surya Deva
So I think the regulation should encourage this cultural shift in the organisations that we're dealing with here, in my view, and that's where we need to create incentives. Public procurement has a key role to play that the companies that are investing huge amount of resources and due diligence, for instance, they should benefit.

0:54:6.543 --> 0:54:23.863 Surya Deva
Consumer should also create those incentive. Investors should also have a role to play there. So, I think incentives have a key role to play. At the same time, let us face it in any society, there are certain actors, individuals and businesses who will not take their obligations seriously.

0:54:24.423 --> 0:54:41.703 Surya Deva
And I think that is where we need to have some provisions about liability, civil liability or fines or there are possibilities of even access to remedy provisions. So I think we need a combination of these tools baked into this legal regime.

0:54:42.143 --> 0:55:0.223 Surya Deva
And as I mentioned in my paper, we should see this reform of modern slavery law as part of an ecosystem. This law alone cannot fix everything. They have to be reforms elsewhere as well to create an environment and businesses to take these issues very seriously. Thank you.

0:55:0.743 --> 0:55:1.143 Justine Nolan
Shae.

0:55:3.343 --> 0:55:21.543 Shae
Thanks. So this is, yeah, this is a complex one, but I would say what I've seen not work well and maybe others will have similar experiences, but human rights due diligence is fundamentally about how do we lean in, how do we create partnerships, how do we do this relationally with our suppliers and our businesses.

0:55:22.63 --> 0:55:41.703 Shae
So the second that it gets adversarial, the second that companies are put on the defensive. That's where I see things start to stifle up. And you know this is what I'm talking about. The big complex litigations, you know immediately when you start to get that level of litigation scrutiny, it all starts to freeze up and the lawyers start to run it and immediately.

0:55:41.743 --> 0:56:14.863 Shae
Be you sort of shut down the ability to, you know, lean into that situation. So there's definitely a place for litigation. There's definitely a place for that sort of advocacy. But I would say more, more so than not, enforcement is most effective when it's really about driving, you know, consistency in the scrutiny of companies performance and I love, you know, there's benchmarks that's coming out, you know, regularly every year. That's the sort of advocacy we need from civil society and from the regulators. 

0:56:15.783 --> 0:56:54.463 Shae
And it's also, you know, the conversations having, Chris Evans in the Commissioner's Office, being able to call up companies and say that's interesting. You wrote that in your statement. Tell me more and how we beef up those sorts of powers and formalise that so that companies don't see it as a tick and flick in a conversation, but actually a prompt more of an enforcement tool, I think would be where I'd see companies really. Then see that as Surya said, this isn't about, you know, trying to hide and say, yeah, we prevented slavery. Nothing to see here. It's about here's the risks we found. This isn't just something we can solve in a year or maybe even two years. This is multi-year in nature. We're going to need help. We're going to need to know the opportunity to lean into this for a little while to solve, but what are complex problems and issues that are far bigger than anyone company to solve?

0:57:2.863 --> 0:57:22.783 Justine Nolan
Yeah, I mean and you know we we're sort of focusing on enforcement. I mean the core dilemma of any regulation in any on any issue is sort of when to punish and when to reward. And in all sectors, tax law and other places, you'll see there's this carrot and stick approach which Surya is talking about. And so human rights due diligence is really no different. You know there's.

0:57:23.383 --> 0:57:41.303 Justine Nolan
Theory for years around how you've got to have both in order to have an effective law that often just positive incentives by themselves don't work, but also just sanctions all don't work. So human rights, due diligence that we're seeing discussed in Europe and also throughout Asia now is using this mixed model the same as what we're talking about here.

0:57:42.743 --> 0:57:59.943 Justine Nolan
I mean, I think the other takeaway is that we're talking about human rights due diligence from a full spectrum. It's about prevention, but it's also about remediation. So, it's that whole cycle that Shae was talking about and it's also about engaging a full spectrum of people that Surya is talking about. It's the idea that.

0:58:1.343 --> 0:58:16.103 Justine Nolan
This is talking about risk, but it's risk to people risk to business, but you've got to figure out who is within that lens and start to engage with them more meaningfully. I mean, the takeaway for me is very much that all three speakers have talked about. The only way we're going to get through this a lot is to collaborate. It's to collaborate with.

0:58:16.663 --> 0:58:33.503 Justine Nolan
Other corporate peers, but it's to collaborate with other stakeholders. It's to think about government collaboration in terms of regulation. So, it's not about sort of coming in, you know with a hammer saying do this or else it's about how do we build a better environment where people at in operations at the end of supply chains.

0:58:34.143 --> 0:59:12.983 Justine Nolan
Are able to work with dignity basic dignity. That's where we're trying to get to. There was a question around the sort of the limited focus of the government. Their mandate is only to look at this concept within current modern slavery reform. So that's the lens that they're talking about it here. That's in part, while we're not talking about a big CSDDD type issue in Australia at the moment, not to say that, wouldn't happen one day, but the consultations that are happening with the government are driven by the McMillan Review and the response of the government in relation to that. So I want to thank Surya, Shay and Vanessa. I found all your insights very helpful in updating us on what's happening in Europe overnight and it'll probably change again tonight as well.

0:59:14.23 --> 0:59:33.383 Justine Nolan
And keeping this conversation going in Australia, we recognise, I think that Chris and his team are going to keep having these conversations and they'll have different people popping up from all different perspectives in future conversations so that we all start to increase our knowledge a little bit and also start to get to know each other and talk more about and work together on this.

0:59:33.703 --> 0:59:37.263 Justine Nolan
So I'm gonna throw back to Lauren to close out.

0:59:38.703 --> 1:0:17.823 Zanetti, Lauren
Thank you so much, Justine. As always, you're an amazing moderator and speaker, so we really appreciate your insights and facilitation today. Thank you to our expert panellists Surya, Shae and Vanessa. We really appreciated your insights. As always, Surya. Thank you for your paper and your contribution to this discussion through all your hard work there. We encourage people to check it out and thank you all for joining us today. We really appreciated your great questions. We know we didn't get to all of them and that a lot of important issues were raised. So just please do know that we'll be taking your questions away and thinking about them. We do really look forward to continuing this discussion with you. 

1:0:18.383 --> 1:0:38.903 Zanetti, Lauren
We encourage all of you to be involved in shaping what a potential due diligence obligation might look like. For Australia, this is a really important opportunity and would be great to work together across sectors to find something that's right sized for the Australian context. Thank you all and we look forward to engaging with you in the new year.