(Cth) Include a Duty for Reporting Entities to Prevent Modern Slavery

Download the 1-Page Brief Here - (Cth) Include a Duty for Reporting Entities to Prevent Mo.

Download • 144KB

Author: Zeba Vagh, Bianca-Rose Sun, Janelle Kenny & Isabella Barnett | Publish date: 27/10/2026

Content Warning: Exploitation, forced labour

• P: In Australia, there is no duty to prevent modern slavery in operations and supply chains.

• S: The Attorney-General should amend the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) to introduce a ‘duty to prevent’ modern slavery (see below). 

• E: Human Rights Law Centre (2026): ‘Introduce a ‘duty to prevent’ modern slavery that requires reporting entities to take reasonable steps to identify, prevent and address modern slavery in their operations and supply chains’.

  
  

Problem Identification: 

Part 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) (MSA) requires relevant entities to report annually on ‘the risks of modern slavery in the operations and supply chains’ and ‘actions taken to address those risks’. However, there is no duty to prevent modern slavery.

According to Walk Free, an anti-slavery human rights group, while current efforts ‘ha[ve] driven awareness and transparency, [the] current [MSA] has not driven practical efforts that reduce exploitation within supply chains.’ The Australian Industry Group further argued that ‘businesses will suffer commercially if they fail to address modern slavery’.

Context: 

According to Walk Free, modern slavery refers to ‘situations of exploitation [where] a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception, and/or abuse of power.’ 

The Australian Human Rights Commission (2025) reported that ‘an estimated 41,000 people live in modern slavery in Australia.’ Anti-Slavery Australia found that ‘only 1 in 5 victims [of modern slavery] are detected in Australia’. 

According to Fair Supply and Walk Free, an ‘estimate[d] $98.6 billion worth of imports to Australia were from commodity categories with known risks of modern slavery.’

The Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) proposed ‘a “duty to prevent” modern slavery’ to incorporate human rights due diligence (HRDD) into the MSA. Dinshaw et al. (2022) defined HRDD as ‘the key means … by which businesses can identify, prevent and address human rights harms within their operations or supply chains.’ 

In March 2026, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights called on Australia to incorporate HRDD in the MSA.

Arguments:

International Justice Mission (IJM) argued that the current MSA creates ‘no obligation to prevent modern slavery from occurring.’ Dinshaw et al. (2022) explained that this is ‘failing to drive the changes in corporate behaviour needed to address modern slavery.’ Freya Dinshaw, Senior Lawyer at the HRLC, and Amy Sinclair, Business and Human Rights Specialist, found ‘a noticeable ad hoc approach to how due diligence has been conducted by companies and widely differing levels of effort’. Dinshaw et al. (2022) noted that ‘nearly one in two companies reviewed (43%) are still failing to identify obvious modern slavery risks in their supply chain’. Clara Ribeiro Assumpcao, Business and Human Rights Advisor at Walk Free, highlighted that some companies ‘know they are recruiting people into conditions akin to modern slavery, [whereas others] prefer to have a blind eye and not know as long as labour is cheap’. Professor Justine Nolan, Director of the Australian Human Rights Institute, stated that ‘while the [MSA] has generated increased business awareness of the risks of modern slavery, this has not yet translated into effective practices to remediate and eliminate it.’

Walk Free highlighted that without HRDD, Australian businesses ‘will be uncompetitive in the global market compared to businesses who already comply with these standards, and this can … negatively impact the domestic economy.’ Ava Kalinauskas, a fellow from Global Voices, reported that ‘as jurisdictions like the [US] and [the EU] adopt stricter regulations banning imports of goods made using forced labour, Australian companies risk losing access to key markets without stronger enforcement mechanisms.’ Walk Free highlighted that without ‘embedding due diligence into the [MSA]’, Australia cannot ‘ensure that its businesses remain trusted, competitive, and aligned with the ethical expectations of global markets.’

Advice/Solution Identification:

The HRLC, Walk Free, the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner and IJM have called for the MSA to be amended to require reporting entities to identify, prevent and address modern slavery risks in their supply chains and operations. The Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner stated that a ‘due diligence obligation enshrined in the [MSA] … would enable companies to invest in effective action to reduce their risks and get greater outcomes for vulnerable workers’. 

Precedent:

There is domestic and international precedent for establishing HRDD obligations for operations and supply chains. France, Germany, and Norway have enacted statutory ‘duty to prevent’ Acts. In Australia, employers have a legal ‘duty to prevent’ sex discrimination in workplaces. 

---

Public Support of the Solution:

(This list reflects publicly stated positions and should not necessarily be taken as endorsement of this specific brief.)

1. Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC)

2. Walk Free

3. Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner

4. International Justice Mission (IJM)

5. Amnesty International

6. Responsible Investment Association Australasia

7. Baptist World Aid Australia

8. South Australian Modern Slavery Network Worker-Focused Group

9. Migrant Justice Institute

10. Australian Council of Trade Unions

11. Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region 

*Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region also calls for a forced labour import ban, noting that due diligence alone cannot address state-imposed forced labour.

12. Uniting Church in Australia, Synod of Victoria and Tasmania (see acknowledgments)

13. Be Slavery Free

Note: Be Slavery Free is signed by the following organisations/individuals that are not already listed above:

14. All of the Good Things

15. Anglican Church Southern Queensland

16. Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn

17. AusCam

18. ACRATH (Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking In Humans) 

19. Catholic Religious Australia

20. Equality Rights Alliance

21. Fair Trade Association of Australia & New Zealand Inc

22. For Dignity

23. Forget Me Not Australia

24. Good on You

25. Hagar Australia

26. International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China

27. Mercy Foundation

28. National Council of Jewish Women of Australia

29. Offspring

30. Project Respect

31. Sisters of Saint Joseph

32. The A21 Campaign

33. The Freedom Hub

34. The Freedom Project

35. Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association (AUTWA)

36. Spirited

Broad Support:

1. Ava Kalinauskas, Global Voices Fellow - They considered recommending amendments to the MSA ‘to require companies to act rather than just report on instances of human rights abuses in supply chains.’ However, they ultimately proposed amendments to the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), not the MSA. 

2. EY - They have called for ‘due diligence [to] go further than identifying inherent modern slavery risks, [as] businesses should be required to investigate and validate inherent risks, and more importantly, to identify and address both indicators of modern slavery and actual modern slavery occurrences.’ However, they have not explicitly called for a ‘duty to prevent’ in the MSA.

3. KPMG - They have recommended that the MSA ‘should be amended to include a positive duty on reporting entities to undertake and report on human rights due diligence to identify, assess, and manage risks of human rights abuses, including modern slavery practices, in their operations and supply chains.’ However, they have not explicitly called for a ‘duty to prevent’ in the MSA.

4. Queensland University of Technology’s Centre for Decent Work and Industry - They called for ‘due diligence steps that align with internationally recognised practices’. However, they have not explicitly called for a ‘duty to prevent’ in the MSA.

5. Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) - They have called for the Australian Government to amend the MSA to require reporting entities to ‘undertake robust human rights due diligence to address modern slavery’. However, they have not explicitly called for the 'duty to prevent' in the MSA.

6. United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - They explicitly urged the Australian Government to amend the MSA, ‘including by introducing mandatory human rights due diligence obligations’. However, they did not explicitly call for a 'duty to prevent' in the MSA.

7. United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery (Tomoya Obokata) - They have called for the Australian Government to ‘expand the [MSA] framework to integrate mandatory human rights due diligence legislation aligned with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’. However, they did not specifically call for a 'duty to prevent' in the MSA.

8. Australian Human Rights Commission - They have called for ‘the [MSA to] be reoriented to move beyond the current transparency model, and to instead impose enforceable due diligence obligations on companies.’ However, they have not explicitly called for the 'duty to prevent' in the MSA.

9. Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women’s Association - They have called for amendments to the MSA to ‘require companies to take action to address modern slavery.’ However, they have not explicitly called for a ‘duty to prevent’.

Open letter - ‘A powerful alliance of over 100 investors, businesses, unions, civil society organisations, academics, and survivor advocates’ have called for ‘a requirement to undertake risk-based due diligence, which would level the playing field and promote an effective, proportionate, and outcome-focused approach to addressing modern slavery’. However, they have not explicitly called for the ‘duty to prevent’ in the MSA. Note: The Open Letter is signed by the following organisations/individuals that are not already listed above:

10. Above Ground (Canada)

11. ActionAid Australia

12. Advocate for Public Interest Law (South Korea)

13. Amfori

14. Anti-Slavery Australia

15. Anti-Slavery International

16. Aquinas Associates

17. Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans (ACRATH)

18. Australian Child Rights Taskforce

19. Australian Council of Trade Unions

20. Australian Ethical

21. Australian Workers Union

22. Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation

23. B Lab Australia & Aotearoa New Zealand

24. Better Sydney

25. Brightlight Group

26. Business and Human Rights Access to Justice Lab

27. Business and Human Rights Centre

28. Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability (Canada)

29. CBIS, Inc

30. Cleaning Accountability Framework

31. Colonial First State

32. Corporate Accountability Lab (US)

33. Domus 8.7

34. Dowson Turco Lawyers

35. DPAM nv

36. ESG Advisory 

37. Ethical Clothing Australia

38. Ethical Investment Advisors

39. Ethos Foundation

40. Fair Futures

41. Fair Supply

42. Figure 8 Investment Strategies

43. Freedom United

44. Future Group

45. Human Rights Watch 

46. Human Trafficking Legal Centre (US)

47. IFM Investors

48. Informed365

49. Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility (US)

50. Investor Alliance for Human Rights

51. KTNC Watch (Korea)

52. Libera Foundation (Chile)

53. Macquarie University (Dr Ebony Birchall, Dr Hayley Jago, Dr David Birchall)

54. Manushya Foundation (Thailand)

55. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

56. Migrant Justice Institute

57. Migrant Workers Centre

58. Milford

59. Mining and Energy Union

60. MMH Foundation

61. MN

62. Money Matters

63. OECD Watch

64. Oxfam Australia

65. Perpetual Group

66. Pillar Two

67. Praxis Investment Management

68. Project Respect

69. Regenerative Ltd

70. Religions for Peace Australia

71. Responsible Sourcing Network

72. RMIT Business and Human Rights Centre

73. SA Unions

74. Serena Lillywhite AM

75. Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association National

76. Sibanye Stillwater

77. Siobhan Toohill (Director of Pure and Applied)

78. SIX

79. Survivor Connections

80. Tattarang Ltd (including Akubra, RM Williams, Wyloo, Squadron Energy, Harvest Road Group)

81. The Freedom Fund

82. Transparentem

83. Unchained Solutions

84. Union Aid Abroad APHEDA

85. UniSuper

86. University of Adelaide (Dr Kyla Raby and Dr Katherine Christ)

87. University of Melbourne (Professor Vikram Bhakoo and Dr Kate McDonald)

88. University of Newcastle (Dr Tim Connor)

89. University of New South Wales (Emeritus Professor Stephen Frenkel)

90. University of Sydney (Associate Professor Martijn Boersma)

91. UN Principles for Responsible Investment

92. UNSW Australian Human Rights Institute

93. Veritė

94. Western Power

95. World Vision Australia

News Coverage:

• ABC News - “NSW modern slavery report calls for urgent reform to protect migrant workers”. This article reported on the NSW parliamentary inquiry into the slavery risks faced by temporary migrant workers in regional areas, which detailed ‘harrowing stories of mistreatment and harm’. By: Emma Siossian, Charles Rushforth and Samuel O’Brien | 6 Aug 2026 - Read the article here. 

• ABC News - “Vulnerable workers bearing the cost of providing Australia with cheap food”. This article exposed the hidden modern slave labour workforce in Australia, detailing systemic worker exploitation, debt bondage, and human trafficking within the horticulture industry linked to labour-hire companies. By: Adele Ferguson, Chris Gillett and Madi Chwasta | 4 Aug 2026 - Read the article here.

• Walk Free - “Investors, unions, human rights groups and survivors unite on call for stronger modern slavery laws”. This article reported on a joint letter to the Attorney-General urging the Government to prioritise mandatory risk-based due diligence requirements for large companies under the Modern Slavery Act. By: Walk Free | 25 May 2026 - Read the article here. 

• Walk Free - “Time for action as Australia considers mandatory due diligence on modern slavery”. This article reported on the impacts of introducing mandatory due diligence into the Modern Slavery Act on Australian businesses. By: Walk Free | 17 Feb 2026 - Read the article here. 

• ESG Today - “Australia to Crack Down on Modern Slavery in Company Supply Chains”. This article reported on the Australian government's announcement to strengthen its modern slavery laws, including plans to introduce criminal liability for large companies failing to prevent modern slavery in their supply chains unless they demonstrate reasonable preventive steps. By: Mark Segal | 20 July 2026 - Read the article here.

Where to go to learn more: 

1. (2025) Consultation: Strengthening the Modern Slavery Act | Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner - This submission of Australia’s Anti-Slavery Commissioner responded to the Government's July 2025 ‘Strengthening the Modern Slavery Act’ consultation paper, where it supported the inclusion of a ‘duty to prevent’ criteria in the MSA, aligned with UN Guiding Principles and OECD Guidelines - Read the submission here. 

2. (2026) Overdue Diligence: The case for mandatory due diligence in Australia’s Modern Slavery Act | Walk Free - This report outlined why Australia must reform its Modern Slavery Act by introducing mandatory human rights due diligence to effectively tackle forced labour in supply chains. Read the full report here.

3. (2022) Broken Promises: Two years of corporate reporting under Australia’s Modern Slavery Act | Human Rights Law Centre - This joint report by the Human Rights Law Centre and other academics and civil society organisations argued that despite the introduction of the MSA, companies are still failing to comply with mandatory reporting requirements to address modern slavery risks in their supply chains. Read the full report here. 

4. (2022) Paper Promises? Evaluating the early impact of Australia’s Modern Slavery Act | Human Rights Law Centre - This joint report by the Human Rights Law Centre and other academics and civil society organisations highlighted ineffective action taken by companies to identify modern slavery risks within their supply chains. Read the full report here.

Note: There are 4 joint reports by the Human Rights Law Centre on this topic published in 2022 and 2023. They can be viewed here. 

5. (2026) Strengthening the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth): Draft submission | Human Rights Law Centre - This submission by the Human Rights Law Centre responded to the Government's consultation on strengthening Australia's modern slavery laws, advocating for a legal duty to prevent modern slavery, mandatory due diligence, and stronger enforcement mechanisms to protect vulnerable workers. Read the submission here. 

6. Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) - Read the full Act here.

   
   

Human Perspective: 

CW: exploitation, forced labour

Maya is 29 and works up to 16 hours a day in an overseas garment factory producing apparel imported into Australia. She is trapped by debt bondage after paying exorbitant recruitment fees to secure employment. Far from her family and home village, Maya lives in overcrowded, substandard housing provided by her employer, where her passport is systematically withheld to prevent her from leaving. She dreams of the community she left behind and the independence she once had. She has become increasingly exhausted and isolated, constantly terrified of retaliation and speaking out about wage theft, forced overtime, or unsafe conditions. The casualised nature of global supply chains allows her daily exploitation to remain entirely invisible to Australian corporations and consumers, who continue to buy retail goods made by her underpaid labour. 

To protect the anonymity of those involved, this is a fictionalised account drawn from an amalgamation of real-life stories, experiences and testimonials gathered during the research process for this brief. Any resemblance to actual individuals is purely coincidental.

Conflict of interest/acknowledgment statement: 

Any statement without a reference link came from conversations with Clara Ribeiro Assumpcao Business and Human Rights advisor at Walk Free, on 26th August and is shared with her permission.

Uniting Church in Australia, Synod of Victoria and Tasmania confirmed their support for this solution in an email with FORE Good on 1 October 2026. Shared with their consent.

Support 

If your organisation would like to add your support to this paper or suggest amendments, please email hello@foregood.org.au. 

Disclaimers

Please review all FORE disclaimers here.

Reference list: 

Amnesty International Australia. (2022). Submission to the Review of Australia’s Modern Slavery Act 2018. https://consultations.ag.gov.au/crime/modern-slavery-act-review/consultation/view_respondent?_b_index=60&uuId=372052859

Anti-Slavery Australia. (n.d.). Modern Slavery. Retrieved September 15, 2026, from https://antislavery.org.au/modern-slavery/

Assumpcao, C. R. (2026). Meeting regarding policy brief on strengthening Modern Slavery Act [Video interview with Business and Human Rights Advisor, Walk Free]. 2026, 26 August. 

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2024). Call for Input on Country visit to Australia. https://humanrights.gov.au/resource-hub/by-resource-type/submissions/human-rights/call-input-country-visit-australia

Australian Human Rights Institute. (n.d.). Investigation shows companies still failing to act on modern slavery. UNSW Sydney. Retrieved September 15, 2026, from https://www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au/news/new-report-shows-companies-failing-to-act-on-modern-slavery

Dinshaw, F., Nolan, J., Hill, C., Sinclair, A., Marshall, S., McGaughey, F., Boersma, M., Bhakoo, V., Goss, J. & Keegan, P. (2022). Broken Promises: Two years of corporate reporting under Australia’s Modern Slavery Act. Human Rights Law Centre. https://www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/Broken%20Promises%20Report.pdf#page=13

European Commission. (n.d). Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Retrieved September 15, 2026, from https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/eu-due-diligence-navigator-partner-countries/coporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive-csddd_en

Evans, C. (2025).  Getting the balance right: proportionate due diligence to address modern slavery risks. Office of the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner. Retrieved September 15, 2026, from https://www.antislaverycommissioner.gov.au/news/getting-balance-right-proportionate-due-diligence-address-modern-slavery-risks

Fair Supply & Walk Free. (2026). Australia’s trade exposure to modern slavery. https://cdn.walkfree.org/content/uploads/2026/02/03171759/FairSupply_onepager_Final.pdf

French Republic. (2017). Loi n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d'ordre. Légifrance. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000034290626

German Federal Government. (2021). Gesetz über die unternehmerischen Sorgfaltspflichten in Lieferketten. Gesetze im Internet. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lksg/

Human Rights Law Centre. (2026). Strengthening the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth): Draft submission by the Human Rights Law Centre. https://www.hrlc.org.au/app/uploads/2026/07/Human-Rights-Law-Centre-Submission-on-MSA-July-2026-for-website.pdf

International Justice Mission Australia. (n.d.). Modern Slavery in Supply Chains: Why Australia Must Strengthen Its Laws. Retrieved September 15, 2026, from https://ijm.org.au/stories/free-from-slavery

Kalinauskas, A. (2025). Breaking the chain: The case for an Australian import ban on products made using forced labour. Global Voices. Retrieved September 15, 2026, from https://www.globalvoices.org.au/post/breaking-the-chain-the-case-for-an-australian-import-ban-on-products-made-using-forced-labour

Larter, W. (2021, December 3). Address modern slavery or lose competitive edge. Australian Industry Group. https://www.australianindustrygroup.com.au/news/blogs/2021/address-modern-slavery-or-lose-competitive-edge/

Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2018A00153/latest/text

Norwegian Parliament. (2021). Lov om virksomheters åpenhet og arbeid konsekvenser for grunnleggende menneskerøttigheter og anstendige arbeidsforhold (åpenhetsloven). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2021-06-18-99

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A02868/latest/text

Sinclair, A., & Dinshaw, F. (2022). Paper promises? Evaluating the early impact of Australia's Modern Slavery Act. Human Rights Law Centre. https://www.hrlc.org.au/app/uploads/2025/04/Paper-Promises_Australia-Modern-_Slavery-Act_7_FEB.pdf

United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2026). Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Australia. United Nations Economic and Social Council. https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=Qv276uNCVIJ6bNeZNb%2FaQjANNf5hc7kTcj8eVoWgPIidW7FaD9b4s7nmOTtvNOYVZ52dTJlDqtPSzgmkEtMPTQ%3D%3D

United Nations Human Rights Council. (2025). Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences, Tomoya Obokata (Doc. A/HRC/60/28/Add.1). United Nations. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/60/28/Add.1

Walk Free. (2023). The Global Slavery Index 2023. https://cdn.walkfree.org/content/uploads/2023/05/17114737/Global-Slavery-Index-2023.pdf

Walk Free. (2026). Overdue Diligence: The case for mandatory due diligence in Australia’s Modern Slavery Act. https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/Overdue_Diligence_Walk_Free.pdf 

Walk Free. (n.d.). What is modern slavery? Retrieved September 15, 2026, from https://www.walkfree.org/what-is-modern-slavery/#:~:text=exploitation%20that%20a%20person...abuse%20of%20power