Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That was fantastic! Thank you, the member for Goldstein! He always takes the bait. There are technical differences, of course, between human trafficking, forced labour, domestic servitude, sex trafficking and modern slavery, but the crux of modern slavery—the umbrella term for these crimes—is a situation where a victim is forced, coerced or defrauded into working for the benefit of the perpetrator. Everyone should be free. I agree with the member for Goldstein's statements. Everyone should be free from such kinds of forced fraud and coercion. Everyone should have the right to benefit from their own labour. That may sound simple, but it's all too often overlooked in real life and in our culture. I can illustrate the essence of slavery with some fairytales which we would have been told as kids. Cinderella, Rapunzel and Oliver Twist—who we're all familiar with—were all victims of modern slavery. Cinderella was forced to cook and clean for free. Rapunzel was deceived into staying captive in order for her captor to exploit the magical properties of her hair. Oliver Twist was a child whose vulnerabilities were exploited by criminals for selfish gain.

Today, the parliament has an opportunity to properly recognise modern-day victims living real lives of modern slavery akin to the fairytales. Labor, of course, will not stand in the way of this bill, but two things are important to note at the outset. The first point is that we should recognise the work of the member for Hotham and, indeed, the federal Labor Party for leading the way on this. I attended roundtables with business stakeholders, union stakeholders and workers long before the government got on board and made a commitment to this legislation. The second point is that, while it's a worthy start, it can be improved and it doesn't go far enough.

Unlike the fairytales I mentioned, many victims do not live happily ever after, and some do not live long at all. They are forced, coerced and defrauded until they're unable to work for the perpetrators anymore, or until they die. Perpetrators are in the business of profiting off the lives of vulnerable people. In the case of sex trafficking, many victims do not live for more than seven years. To help these modern-day Cinderellas or Rapunzels, governments across the world need to act together, collectively. Unfortunately, Australia's government are doing this in a half-hearted way. The government are stopping short, because they simply can't bring themselves to say no to anything that big business asks of them.

This is our chance to put in place a framework to protect people in Australia and overseas from the most horrific forms of exploitation. Even today, across the world, perpetrators continue to avoid detection by exploiting the vulnerabilities of victims by keeping them voiceless. These victims are voiceless because they are hidden deep within the labyrinth of complex global supply chains. It's no exaggeration to say that these forms of extreme exploitation are truly the darkest, hidden aspects of globalisation and capitalism.

The power imbalance is extreme. The victims are mostly women, girls, children, the poor and those without privilege or living in countries without the rule of law on one hand and they're up against enormous multinational companies with millions or billions of annual revenue on the other hand. This is a recipe for suffering and exploitation of the weakest, the most vulnerable people, in the most extreme way. Shockingly, this has become the norm, they estimate, for more than 40 million people worldwide. More than 40 million people worldwide live in these extreme, inhuman conditions. That's far more than Australia's entire population. Australians may be surprised, though, to learn that even here there are victims. The Walk Free Foundation estimates that there are thousands of victims hidden and suffering here in Australia—on farms in Australia, in factories in our suburbs, in kitchens down the street, in ordinary neighbourhoods in every major city.

Addressing this inequality has resonated with so many in Australia and in this House because it resonates with Australian values—a fair go. So an act which shines light on complex and hidden supply chains not only in Australia but also across the world and the region provides the opportunity for political and corporate leadership—a rare opportunity at the moment for a race to the top, if you like, when the parliament has spent so much time this term debating the race to the bottom in multinational regulation, corporate tax and so on. A strong regime can do much to foster better labour standards in Australia and wherever Australian companies do business. But, to be effective, we need strong political and corporate leadership. Labor, as I said, led this debate. We committed to it before the government got on board. The government have meandered along slowly but they have got partway there. But I'll touch on our concerns about the regime in a moment.

I do observe that we as privileged people may expect and even take for granted that our institutions work as they should. We generally feel safe in our rule of law. This is, however, not the case in many places where large numbers of people live in deep poverty, with governments which are unable or unwilling to protect their wellbeing—hence, their extreme vulnerability is ripe for exploitation. In a globalised world, we cannot be present at the scene of the crime. We can't help a woman forced by debt bondage to work in a sweatshop making clothes we may buy, but we can make sure that the company which sells the clothes takes steps to ensure that all subcontractors pay a fair wage. We can't help an individual child being exploited in a village plantation picking produce for export, but we can make sure that Australian companies ensure that no child labour is used in the harvesting of their produce, and report accordingly.

In a modern globalised world, it's only fair that sizeable companies should be expected, indeed required, to ask questions about their supply chains, to be actively curious, to audit, to not just say, 'We didn't know,' and, when they find problems, to take steps to clean it up. Morally, we cannot expect the poorest people in the world—the woman or the child in the examples I have given—to be able to exert change in their situations. It's just impossible. So we must do something for those people from whom we profit.

Our country's biggest and best companies do business throughout the world. They have supply chains which cover all kinds of inputs in a plethora of industries which reach right into these villages, forests, plantations, factories, workshops and fisheries in distant places. We can provide these companies with both a responsibility and a mandate to shed more light and bring some hope into places where we may otherwise never know where to even begin looking.

I think it is fair to say that the moral case is agreed by all members of this chamber—government members, opposition members and, I guess, members of the crossbench.

In my view, in order to be successful in addressing a problem, it is common sense to match the treatment with the problem; it makes sense to match the treatment with the nature of the disease. Human trafficking is an endemic problem which requires a holistic solution. It has not and will not respond to partial or quick-fix, politically convenient solutions. I pay tribute to an intern and, indeed, a friend who has assisted me with some of the thinking on this who in his previous life headed the modern slavery coalition in the Asia-Pacific, based out of Malaysia, and who pointed me to a lot of work that he's done over many years: Daniel Lo. He said that the experts recommend efforts across the four Ps. First is prevention: keep the victims out of harm. Second is prosecution: get the bad guys. Third is protection: help victims when we find them. Fourth is partnership: work together because it is complex and there is a lot of work to do.

The modern slavery act is just one piece of the puzzle. Yet, rather than learning from both global and local experts, the government has decided to go unnecessarily soft on big business. I say 'unnecessarily' and I'll explain why. I believe the act should include penalties for noncompliance and that it's not as controversial as some may think. It is a no-brainer, really. If we're unequivocally serious about stepping up and stamping out modern slavery, as we hear we all are, and about ensuring businesses actually look at their supply chains and report on them, there have to be penalties for noncompliance. Penalties hold companies accountable because they're in the best position to address the transparency of their own supply chains. Why shouldn't a company benefiting from global trade of over $100 million annually contribute to the clean-up of the global system? Personally, I believe that most businesses subject to this act will want to comply and will comply. For most businesses, common decency alone but also the corporate reputation risks of course will drive serious efforts to comply. Companies don't want to get caught out having dodgy supply chains now; it'll wreck their reputation, and they'll lose customers.

I was involved in some of Labor's consultations, led by the member for Hotham, on modern slavery policy with big business, and I do not believe there's actually great concern. If you talk to them privately outside the chamber—not what they might say in the submissions—there's not really major concern about the idea of putting penalties in, because they intend to comply anyway.

But, sadly, we've also learnt through the royal commission into the banks—the one that the current, temporary Prime Minister voted 27 times to stop and oppose and said was a stunt—that businesses don't always do what they want to do, not even when they have to. And so, accordingly, the focus must be at the top. Customers can reasonably expect companies that have complied in the focus of regulation, but it must be on the CEO and the board, not consumers. And so it's entirely reasonable that, with such a serious issue, if we're serious as a parliament about saying that businesses have to audit their supply chains, have to take responsibility for it and have to address failings when they find them, there are penalties available not for trivial misconduct, not for oversights, not for things which people are consciously trying to fix but for serious misconduct. There should be penalties available. The government should really rethink this aspect and get serious on it. I don't believe it's as controversial as some may make out, and they could address that in the Senate.

The second deficiency in Labor's view and in my view is that this act should have an antislavery commissioner. I met last year with the UK modern slavery commissioner put in place with their act. A commissioner would work both across and within that four-P paradigm which I laid out. They are such complex and difficult issues to address, and a specialist commissioner with sufficient resources would be essential to ensuring that this complex problem is properly addressed. For example, the antislavery commissioner would be key in addressing the gaps and weaknesses in our protection framework once victims are recognised and rescued. The framework requires a high level of coordination as it involves law enforcement, government agencies and civil society organisations, not to mention reciprocal states if the victim is from another country. The UK slavery act already lists 36 different statements from Australian companies such as Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Wesfarmers. Corporate leaders are already reporting. This is not new. But the reporting framework under the Modern Slavery Act in the UK hasn't worked as it does not penalise companies that fail to report. For example, 61 per cent of surveyed UK statements did not comply with the requirement of a CEO signature on the statement. The UK antislavery commissioner has demonstrated enormous practical engagement across business and government sectors to stamp out modern slavery. This kind of practical work would clearly be beyond the business engagement unit.

It's difficult to understand, on reflection, what the rant from the member for Goldstein about his previous life as the Human Rights Commissioner of Australia was really about. It was entertaining but it's still difficult to understand what it had to do with the debate at hand. It's not actually the government's proposal that this thing be enforced from there. He does take every opportunity, as Deputy Speaker Vasta and I both know—we've sat through this—to remind everyone that he was Australia's Human Rights Commissioner. He did provide in his speech to the parliament an explanation as to why he was appointed and tried to make it relevant. Others have a different view: that the former Attorney-General was playing an April Fools Day joke on the Human Rights Commission, hence his appointment. But that's a matter for debate.

The government proposes to leave it to the Department of Home Affairs. I wouldn't trust that mob to run a chook raffle if their performance on visa processing, citizenship processing, contract management or any basic administrative function is anything to go by. It's difficult to think of any other department that has a worse performance record. I'm the deputy chair of the Public Accounts and Audit Committee, and we have the department through and we look at their audit reports and their performance. Their basic performance as an entity of government administration is appalling. I simply cannot accept that is an acceptable home. The case for a commissioner who is serious about this is strong.

In summary, I believe corporate leaders are willing to lead in this area. It can, as I said, be a race to the top if we do this right. I praise both trade unions and big business in broad terms for getting behind the concept and saying that we have to deal with our global supply chains and take this seriously. The government has followed, not led, but it's there or partially there. But, like with everything else now, its heart just doesn't seem to be in it. The government can pick up some of the points in this debate and give them further thought when the bill reaches the Senate, because there are more procedures that can be followed.

See this speech in context