Submission Guide: Strengthening the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth)

This guide is for everyday Australians and community groups who want to have their say on the government's review of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth). It includes the exact consultation questions from Parts A and B, explains what each one means in plain English, and provides responses which have been developed in conversation with a number of civil society groups and that reflect strong support for government regulation, corporate accountability, and human rights due diligence. You are welcome to use any part of these responses where they may reflect your views, or write your own responses.

You can visit the consultation website and make an online submission here. The consultation closes on 1 September 2025.

This Consultation is divided into five parts. Be Slavery Free has provided responses to Parts A and B. Parts C to E are primarily administrative in nature, and we do not hold strong views on those sections.

PART A:
Mandatory Reporting Criteria

The Modern Slavery Act currently requires companies to report on their identity, structure, operations, supply chains, modern slavery risks, actions taken (including due diligence and remediation), effectiveness of those actions, consultation processes, and any other relevant information. The laws are what are what are known as 'risk-based' reporting requirements. Companies need to identify and assess their exposure to risks of modern slavery practices. Although the reporting framework is described as ‘mandatory’, in practice it’s voluntary—there are no consequences for non-compliance. It’s a bit like saying, ‘You must submit an accurate tax return, but if you don’t, well… never mind.’

Be Slavery Free proposes that the government should require reporting organisations to have a duty to prevent modern slavery, sometimes more technically called mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (mHRDD or HRDD) approach to modern slavery. This approach has been endorsed unanimously by the United Nations Human Rights Council and is used in many other places around the world including the European Union. It requires identifying, preventing, mitigating and accounting for how the organisations addresses the impacts of modern slavery. It is a duty to prevent modern slavery.

Consultation Question Plain English (What this means) Suggested Response Expanded Response
1. Do you support the potential changes to the reporting criteria? Are any further changes needed to the reporting criteria? Should the government change what reporting organisations must include in their modern slavery statements?
Should anything else be added?		 Yes, I support the potential changes, with additional changes The proposed changes may strengthen risk-based reporting requirements. However, if companies are expected to report transparently on how they implement a human rights due diligence framework—that is, how they fulfil their duty to prevent—then a different set of questions will be necessary. Companies should not only report who they are and how they assess risk; they must be required to take meaningful action to prevent modern slavery across the entire supply and value chains of the goods and services they procure.
2. Do you support the matters the department proposes to include in delegated legislation (such as rules)? If not, what changes are needed? Should the government be able to update some of the details (like what information reporting organisations must include) through official rules, without changing the whole Act back through to the Parliament? No, I do not support the matters the department proposes to include in delegated legislation Whilst I am not opposed to some changes being implemented through regulation (such as guidance and rules), rather than legislated Acts of Parliament, in order for businesses to be required to take a duty to prevent approach, more significant legislative change is needed. Good governance, policies, training and engagement with stakeholders, in and of themselves, are not substantive enough actions to prevent modern slavery. They will support identifying risks only.
3. Are there any challenges associated with including details about reporting criteria in delegated legislation? If so, what are they? Are there any problems with putting the reporting details in official rules and guidance instead of an Act of Parliament? No Provided the rules are not diluted through non-transparent processes, any proposed changes should be open to public consultation. New forms of modern slavery are constantly emerging, and including detailed reporting requirements in official regulations could help address these evolving trends more effectively. We need strong, evolving standards; not delays in making improvements and responding to changing contexts.
4. Should additional guidance be developed to assist reporting entities to comply with the proposed changes to the mandatory reporting criteria? If so, what topics should be addressed by new guidance? Should the government provide more help for reporting organisations on the new rules? What kind of help? Yes Guidance should make it clear how businesses can undertake their 'duty to prevent modern slavery'. To effectively enact a duty to prevent, organisations would need to report on areas such as their alignment of policies with the International Labour Organization’s Foundational Principles (all of which are legally binding in Australia), purchasing practices, responsible sourcing, any allegations of modern slavery involving them or their suppliers, remedial actions taken, evidence-based evaluations of their interventions, and any other efforts aimed at addressing the root causes of modern slavery. These requirements must be addressed. They should be advised on how to engage with workers in safe and meaningful ways, create safe and effective grievance channels which are effective in addressing modern slavery, and how to respond appropriately when modern slavery is found.
5. Should a new criterion be added that requires entities to report on key actions or changes since their previous statement? Should reporting organisations have to report what’s changed since their last report? Yes Enacting a duty to prevent (and undertaking HRDD) are ongoing processes that requires businesses to continually assess, address, and monitor exploitation risks, adapting their actions as conditions and supply chains evolve. This new criterion will help us know if companies are improving or just repeating the same information each year. Progress and accountability matter.
6. Should reporting entities be required to report information about grievance mechanisms? If so, what specific information about grievance mechanisms should entities be required to report on? Should reporting organisations have to explain how workers and other people can safely raise complaints? If yes, what should reporting organisations be required to report? Yes According to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), grievance mechanisms should be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatible, and a source of continuous learning. It needs to be recognised that utilising grievance mechanisms require confidence and a level of trust in the system, which is mostly absent in cases of modern slavery. It is common for people in modern slavery to be isolated, have limited opportunities to interact with others, not know who to trust, and to be afraid of authorities. Reporting organisations should articulate how the mechanisms they have in place are accessible to individuals experiencing modern slavery. A uniform approach will not be effective in all contexts; multiple, tailored strategies may be necessary to ensure meaningful access and impact. Some reporting organisations already report on the number of complaints received, the nature of those complaints, the actions taken in response, and how feedback was communicated to the complainant. This level of transparency represents best practice.
7. Are there any sensitivities with requiring an entity to report on grievance mechanisms? Please consider any sensitivities relating to quantitative or qualitative information about grievance mechanisms that might be captured. Could it be a problem to report on complaint systems (like sharing numbers or examples)? Yes Personal or identifying information about workers should not be included in business reporting, as doing so may expose individuals—and in some cases, their families—to risks such as retaliation, job loss, or physical harm. This concern is particularly acute in contexts where modern slavery is concealed or systemic. Instead, businesses should be required to report in ways that uphold confidentiality while still offering meaningful insight into the actions taken and the outcomes achieved.
8. Should reporting on remediation be a separate mandatory reporting criterion? If so, what specific information about remediation actions and processes should entities report on? Notably, the review explored requiring entities to report on the number of matters referred to law enforcement or other bodies, as well as to report on details of modern slavery incidents or actual risks. Should reporting organisations have to report on what they do to fix situations where slavery has been found? Yes If harm has occurred, companies should show what they've done to put things right, steps they have taken to prevent it happening again and what they have learnt. Any remediation must be culturally sensitive and appropriate to the context as well as engage the impacted worker(s) in the process. Reporting should include: The types of grievances or harms identified (without naming individuals); What remediation actions were taken, including how many matters were referred to law enforcement or other regulatory bodies and if external professionals were engaged to assist with the process; How affected workers or communities were involved in shaping the remedy; How they ensured the remedy was culturally appropriate and effective; What changes they made to prevent similar harm in the future; What follow-up was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of any intervention. Some companies already report on these kinds of matters. This level of transparency represents best practice. This kind of reporting demonstrates accountability and a genuine commitment to human rights, not just risk management.
9. Are there any sensitivities with requiring an entity to report on remediation, noting information about remediation may include quantitative or qualitative information? Are there any problems with making reporting organisations report how they fixed things when modern slavery was found? No Not if it is done responsibly. While individuals’ identities must be protected—meaning no personal or identifying information should be disclosed by reporting organisations—transparency remains essential. The public has a right to know whether reporting organisations are taking genuine, concrete steps to address harm, rather than simply making claims without evidence.
10. Are there any specific safeguards we should consider to protect workers in relation to reporting on grievance mechanisms and remediation? How can workers be protected when reporting organisations report on complaints and fixes? Yes Yes, several key safeguards are essential to protect workers when businesses report on grievance mechanisms and remediation processes: Personal or identifying information about workers or complainants must never be disclosed in public reports; Workers must have a clear understanding of the mechanism being used, including the options available at each stage, how their information will be handled, and that participation is entirely voluntary. They should be able to withdraw at any time without fear of reprisal. Informed consent is critical; A zero-tolerance policy for retaliation against individuals who raise concerns must be clearly communicated and rigorously enforced; Workers and/or their representatives should be actively involved in the design, implementation, and review of grievance and remediation mechanisms; Grievance channels must be easily accessible, anonymous, and free from intimidation, including through independent third parties where appropriate; The effectiveness of these mechanisms should be regularly reviewed, including assessments of whether workers feel safe using them and whether the remedies provided are genuinely effective. These safeguards help ensure that grievance and remediation processes are not only protective and respectful of workers’ rights but also credible and impactful.
11. Do the proposed changes to the consultation criterion address the lack of clarity currently experienced by reporting entities? Do the proposed changes make things clearer to organisations reporting? Yes The changes provide greater clarity; however, stronger accountability is still needed.

PART B:
Compliance and Enforcement

The Modern Slavery Act operates on the assumption that when companies submit their Modern Slavery Statements, consumers, investors and civil society will monitor business behaviour and reward those taking meaningful action. It is assumed this will drive the 'race to the top' among businesses striving to do the right thing. However, there is very little evidence that this is working beyond a small number of companies in a few sectors. In most cases, the expected market-driven accountability has not materialised.

These questions focus on how the law should be enforced and whether companies that ignore the rules should face real consequences. Each suggested response supports stronger corporate accountability and reminds the government that it should hold businesses to account.

Please note when the question asks about the ‘regulator’ they mean the government or independent body which monitors compliance with the Act. The current regulator is the Attorney General’s Department.

Whilst many of submissions on the role of the Federal Anti-slavery Commissioner (ASC) saw that it should be the role of the ASC, the government has chose not to do this. Either the status quo or other options need to be explored.

Consultation Question Plain English (What this means) Suggested Response Expanded Response
12. To date, the regulator has not used its power to request remedial action or publish information regarding non-compliance, focusing instead on education. Would additional or enhanced guidance be sufficient to address current non-compliance? Should the government just give more advice to reporting organisations, or do more when they don’t comply? No Without enforceable requirements — particularly around HRDD — many companies will continue to treat modern slavery as a public relations or compliance issue, rather than taking meaningful action. To drive genuine change, legislation must require businesses to fulfil a clear duty to prevent modern slavery. Better guidance alone is insufficient to address persistent non-compliance. While guidance can help clarify expectations, it does not create binding obligations and is unlikely to incentivise the level of action needed to effectively prevent modern slavery.
13. Will the use of these existing compliance powers be sufficient to address current non-compliance? Are the powers currently available to the government sufficient to address the current situation of non-compliance to the Modern Slavery Act? No These powers may help improve transparency (if they are used), but on their own, they are unlikely to be sufficient to address the current widespread non-compliance. Crucially, they do not establish a legal obligation for businesses to prevent or respond to modern slavery risks.
14. Should the existing compliance powers be amended? If so, how? Should the government change the way it enforces the law? What should change? Yes Without enforceable HRDD requirements, civil penalties, or mechanisms for affected workers to seek remedy, the current framework relies too heavily on voluntary action. To strengthen its effectiveness, existing compliance powers should be amended to include: Clear enforcement timelines and follow-up mechanisms to ensure remedial actions are completed promptly and thoroughly; Authority for regulators (government body which enforces compliance with the Modern Slavery Act) to impose financial penalties or sanctions for non-compliance; Mandatory human rights due diligence (mHRDD) as a core component of compliance; Mechanisms enabling affected workers or third parties to initiate investigations or lodge complaints with the regulator; Mandatory transparency around enforcement outcomes, allowing the public to see how non-compliance is addressed and which businesses are held accountable. Effective regulation requires more than education and encouragement—it demands clear consequences for inaction and harm. It is the responsibility of government, not consumers, to ensure that reporting organisations to take meaningful action.
15. Under section 16A of the Modern Slavery Act, the regulator can request an entity provide an explanation for the failure to comply with reporting requirements. Would broader information gathering powers be more effective to address non-compliance? Should the government be able to ask reporting organisations for more information—not just explanations—if they fail to follow the law? Yes The government needs stronger powers to access information and require organisations to provide concrete evidence of the steps they have taken. Transparency must not be optional.
16. Should additional regulatory tools be introduced into the Modern Slavery Act to penalise non-compliance? Should the government add more ways to penalise reporting organisations that don’t follow the law? Yes Without effective enforcement tools, companies will continue to treat modern slavery obligations as a box-ticking exercise. Stronger regulation is essential to protect people throughout the entire supply chain.
17. If yes, which of the following additional regulatory tools should be introduced to respond proportionately to non-compliance? Which new tools should the government use to hold reporting organisations accountable? All Modern slavery is a complex issue that demands a multi-faceted response. Each of the proposed regulatory tools should be introduced to strengthen accountability and drive meaningful change: (a) Infringement notices are essential for ensuring timely and consistent compliance. They signal that non-compliance will not be tolerated; (b) Enforceable undertakings empower regulators to require reporting organisations to take concrete, measurable steps to address identified issues and improve practices—transforming commitments into real change; (c) Redacting statements is critical to maintaining the integrity of modern slavery reporting; (d) Other tools should also be considered, including: Civil penalties, which create a strong deterrent effect by making non-compliance financially and reputationally costly. This elevates modern slavery prevention from a voluntary initiative to a non-negotiable legal duty; Amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to allow for the disqualification of directors who breach reporting obligations under the Modern Slavery Act; Exclusion from the Australian Stock Exchange for entities that fail to meet their reporting obligations, reinforcing the seriousness of compliance. Together, these powers would transform the Modern Slavery Act from a procedural exercise into a robust mechanism for accountability and progress.
18. Should civil penalties be introduced into the Modern Slavery Act? Should the government be allowed to fine reporting organisations that break the law? Yes Civil penalties are essential. Reporting organisations that fail to report, or that submit false or misleading information, must be held accountable. This responsibility lies with the government—not with consumers, investors, or civil society.
19. If yes, which of the following civil penalties should be introduced into the Modern Slavery Act? What should reporting organisations be fined for? All Modern slavery is an egregious crime. Reporting organisations should be fined for the failures listed. In addition, penalties should be imposed on entities that repeatedly submit incomplete statements that do not meet the reporting criteria. These are fundamental accountability mechanisms. Without them, the integrity of the reporting framework is undermined.
20. Should any defences, such as mistake of fact, be considered for any proposed civil penalties? Should there be any exceptions (e.g. honest mistakes) for reporting organisations that break the rules? Yes Possibly—but only in cases of genuine, demonstrable error. Any defences must be carefully designed to avoid becoming loopholes that undermine accountability.
21. What key considerations should be taken into account when considering the maximum penalty units for any penalty provisions? What should the government think about when setting the amount reporting organisations can be fined? Penalties should be high enough to not be regarded as 'cost of doing business' and low enough that the regulator will not be deterred from enforcing them. Penalties should reflect the gravity of modern slavery and ensure that it is never cheaper to ignore the law than to comply with it.
22. If additional regulatory tools are introduced, who should carry out these new functions: Who should make this happen? (c) Other In considering the appropriate government body to enforce the Modern Slavery Act, it is essential that the body responsible for enforcing the law is both independent and adequately resourced. For the system to function effectively, it must be free from political and commercial influence. It should also be recognised that the government itself is subject to the reporting requirements under the Modern Slavery Act and therefore must be held to the same standards of transparency and accountability as other reporting entities. This makes independence particularly important.
23. For the regulator to effectively identify, investigate and litigate alleged non-compliance, the regulator will require: What does the government body (regulator) that enforces the Modern Slavery Act need to do its job properly? All All these elements are essential. Without access to relevant data, appropriate enforcement powers, and sufficient funding, enforcement efforts will not be effective. In addition, there must be a formal mechanism that allows members of the public and workers to lodge allegations of non-compliance or the provision of false or misleading information.
24. Are there any other subsidiary issues to be considered? Is there anything else the government should think about when improving enforcement? Yes The government should commit to a further three-year statutory review of the effectiveness of the Modern Slavery Act, with clearly defined timelines for responding to findings and implementing recommended improvements. As a complementary measure, a ban on the importation of goods produced using forced labour, bonded labour, or child labour should be introduced. This would strengthen Australia’s overall approach to addressing modern slavery within global supply chains. Additionally, the government should publish a list of high-risk commodities and regions linked to modern slavery. By centralising and sharing this information, reporting organisations and government agencies can reduce the time and resources spent on conducting individual risk assessments. These freed-up resources can then be redirected toward proactive measures that directly prevent modern slavery, making Australia’s response more efficient and effective.