Move welcomed by campaigners, but Labor says changes ‘inadequate and ineffective’

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

The federal government will force 3,000 big companies to explain how they are stamping out modern slavery, a move welcomed by anti-slavery campaigners.

But unions and Labor say the changes will be “inadequate and ineffective” without the creation of an independent anti-slavery commissioner or penalties for corporations that breach their new requirements.

The government has been urged to act on modern slavery following a series of revelations of widespread exploitation, including of migrant fruit pickers in Australia, domestic workers in Australian embassies, and children in foreign orphanages.

On Wednesday, it announced further detail on how it would create a new reporting regime designed to drive transparency among big businesses with a turnover of more than $100m. The 3,000 companies will be forced to publish an annual modern slavery statement detailing their efforts to reduce modern slavery in their supply chains. The federal government will be forced to issue its own consolidated statement on modern slavery in its procurement.

Quick guide Modern slavery Show Hide What is modern slavery? About 150 years after most countries banned slavery – Brazil was the last to abolish its participation in the transatlantic slave trade, in 1888 – millions of men, women and children are still enslaved. Contemporary slavery takes many forms, from women forced into prostitution, to child slavery in agriculture supply chains or whole families working for nothing to pay off generational debts. Slavery thrives on every continent and in almost every country. Forced labour, people trafficking, debt bondage and child marriage are all forms of modern-day slavery that affect the world's most vulnerable people.

How many people are enslaved across the world? The UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimates that about 21 million people are in forced labour at any point in time. The ILO says this estimate includes trafficking and other forms of modern slavery. They calculate that 90% of the 21 million are exploited by individuals or companies, while 10% are forced to work by the state, rebel military groups, or in prisons under conditions that violate ILO standards. Sexual exploitation accounts for 22% of slaves. Where does slavery exist? Slavery exists in one form or another in every country. Asia accounts for more than half of the ILO's 21 million estimate. In terms of percentage of population, central and south-east Europe has the highest prevalence of forced labour, followed by Africa, the Middle East, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean.

Who is profiting? In 2005, the ILO estimated that illegal profits from forced labour amounted to more than $44bn. The UN's global initiative to fight trafficking says people trafficking is the third-largest global criminal industry (pdf) behind drugs and arms trafficking. The ILO estimates that people in forced labour lose at least $21bn each year in unpaid wages and recruitment fees. Slavery also exists within global supply chains, generating huge profits for those who control this industry in free labour.

The statements will be kept in a publicly-accessible central repository, and the regime will be overseen by a new unit in the home affairs department.

“This legislation sends a clear message that modern slavery will not be tolerated in our community or in the supply chains of our goods and services,” assistant home affairs minister, Alex Hawke, said.

Estimates, while difficult to make accurately, suggest about 4,300 people in Australia are the victims of modern slavery, including through human trafficking, debt bondage, forced labour and other slavery-like practices.



An inquiry into modern slavery last year made a string of recommendations, including to create an independent anti-slavery commissioner, mirroring a model used in the United Kingdom.

Australia needs new watchdog to tackle slavery, parliamentary inquiry says Read more

The inquiry also called for a reporting regime, but said it should be applied to companies with a turnover of $50m, a far larger pool than that captured in the government’s proposed scheme.

The reaction to the government’s reporting regime has been mixed. The Walk Free Foundation, an anti-slavery group, welcomed the announcement, as did the Business Council of Australia.

Walk Free Foundation chief executive, Jenn Morris, said the reporting laws were stronger than those in the UK, and the requirement for a government statement was a “world first”.

“Pleasingly this announcement takes the Australian modern slavery act beyond its precursor in the UK, which is currently the gold standard for modern slavery reporting, by including a central repository of modern slavery statements,” Morris said.

Hungry, poor, exploited: alarm over Australia's import of farm workers Read more

A survey of procurement managers in Australia, conducted by the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply, suggested the vast majority (80%) believed the rules were a step in the right direction.

It also found 60% supported penalties for businesses that fail to publish reports, and that 20% had not taken any steps to date to ensure their supply chains were slavery free.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions said the reporting requirements were weak. The ACTU’s international and civil society associate director, Andrea Maksimovic, said it had ignored a key recommendation of the inquiry – to establish an independent commissioner.



“Putting this responsibility into the hands of Peter Dutton will simply ensure that companies get a free pass,” Maksimovic said.

Labor’s shadow justice minister, Clare O’Neil, also criticised the absence of an independent commissioner and penalties for non-compliant companies.



“Labor believes that we should not be leaving it to big business to police themselves on slavery. Australia needs a modern slavery act with penalties, and an independent anti-slavery commissioner,” she said. “Anything less would be weak, half-baked response to an shocking human rights issue.”