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 a suggested response that reflects strong support for government regulation, corporate accountability, and human rights due diligence. You are welcome to copy and paste any responses that reflect your views into the government’s online survey, or write your own responses.

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

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. These questions aim to gather your views on proposed changes to the mandatory reporting criteria.

  
      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 companies must include in their modern slavery statements? Should anything else be added?
      Yes, I support the potential changes, with additional changes
      Businesses should be required to report clearly on how they identify and respond to modern slavery risks; and how they listen to workers and fix harm. I strongly support adding a requirement for human rights due diligence as companies shouldn’t just have to report information, they should be required to take real action to prevent exploitation.
    

      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 info businesses must include) through official rules, without changing the whole Act?
      Yes, I support the matters the department proposes to include in delegated legislation, with changes
      Putting some details in delegated legislation makes sense as it allows the government to respond faster and hold businesses to account. However, for meaningful change to occur, businesses must engage in ethical purchasing practices and responsible sourcing. Businesses need to be required to report on their actions in these areas.
    

      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 instead of the Act?
      No
      I’m okay with it so long as the rules aren’t watered down behind closed doors. Any changes should be open to public input. We need strong, evolving standards, not delays in fixing gaps.
    

      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 companies to meet the new rules? What kind of help?
      Yes
      Guidance should make it clear how businesses undertake meaningful human rights due diligence (that is their 'duty to prevent modern slavery'), not just write reports. They should be advised on how to engage with workers in safe and meaningful ways, create safe and effective grievance channels, and 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 companies have to report what’s changed since their last report?
      Yes
      Human rights due diligence can be explained as a 'duty to prevent.' It is an ongoing process that requires businesses to continually assess, address, and monitor risks of exploitation, 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 companies have to explain how workers and other people can safely raise complaints? If yes, what exactly should they say?
      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. Crucially, they must not obstruct access to formal judicial or state-based remedies. Businesses should explain how the mechanisms they have in place meet this standard. Importantly, they should be required to report on how many complaints were made, what they were about, what was done about them, and how feedback was provided to the complainant.
    

      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 because it can put individuals at risk of retaliation, job loss, or harm. This is especially in contexts where exploitation is hidden or systemic. Instead, businesses should be required to report in ways that protect confidentiality while still providing meaningful insight into the actions taken and 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 companies have to report separately 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. This 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
How affected workers or communities were involved in shaping the remedy
How they ensured the remedy was appropriate and effective
What changes they made to prevent similar harm in the future and what follow-up was undertaken to evaluate effectiveness

        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 businesses report how they fixed things when modern slavery was found?
      No
      Not if it's done responsibly. People’s identities should be protected (so no personal or identifying information should be disclosed by businesses), but there must be transparency. The public has a right to know if companies are taking real steps to fix harm, not just saying they are.
    

      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 companies report on complaints and fixes?
      Yes
      
        Several key safeguards are essential to protect workers when businesses report on grievance mechanisms and remediation:
        Personal or identifying details of workers or complainants should never be disclosed in public reports.
Workers must understand how their information will be used and that participation in grievance processes is voluntary.
A zero-tolerance policy for retaliation against those who raise concerns needs to be communicated and enforced.
Involve workers or their representatives in the design and review of grievance and remediation processes.
Provide grievance channels that are easy to access anonymously, without fear, including through independent third parties if necessary.
Regularly review how the mechanisms function, including whether workers feel safe using them and whether remedies are truly effective.

      
    

      11. Do the proposed changes to the consultation criterion address the lack of clarity currently experienced by reporting entities?
      Is the new rule about consulting with other parts of the business clear enough?
      Yes
      The change is clearer. But I’d rather see stronger accountability overall. If parent companies report on behalf of subsidiaries, they must take real responsibility for what’s happening across their whole supply chain.
    

PART B: Compliance and Enforcement

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—not consumers—should hold businesses to account.