The SPEAKER (09:31): I present report No. 30 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 17 September 2018. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows —

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 11 September 2018.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 11 September 2018, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 17 September 2018, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MS COLLINS: To move—That this House notes that:

(1) the R U OK? Conversation Convoy began on 30 July 2018 to raise awareness that a conversation could change a life, and the Convoy will:

(a) travel across 14,000 kilometres and 25 communities to show Australians that every day is the day to ask: Are you Ok?; and

(b) conclude in Sydney on 13 September 2018 which is also R U OK? Day, an important day which was first established in 2009 to raise awareness around suicide prevention and mental ill health;

(2) the statistics around suicide and mental ill health are heartbreaking and confronting:

(a) in 2016, 2,866 Australians lost their lives to suicide;

(b) research reveals that around 65,000 Australians attempt suicide every year and hundreds of thousands of people are impacted by each suicide death; and

(c) one in five Australians experience mental ill health in any year;

(3) all levels of government and the community are urged to work together to reduce the impact of suicide and mental ill health in our society; and

(4) work must continue towards reducing stigma and raising community awareness around suicide prevention and mental ill health.

(Notice given 13 August 2018.)

Time allotted —30minutes.

Speech time limits —

Ms Collins —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

2 MR VAN MANEN: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that over the year, the economy grew 3.4 per cent, which is the fastest rate of growth since the 2012 September quarter during the height of the mining investment boom, and the 27th year of consecutive economic growth;

(2) recognises that strong employment outcomes have been accompanied by an elevated rate of labour force participation, particularly for women, and that wages can be expected to rise if economic growth remains strong; and

(3) calls on the Government to remain resolute in its effective economic management to ensure funding for the essential services we need.

(Notice given 11 September 2018.)

Time allotted —50minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mr van Manen —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

3 MR ZAPPIA: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) an estimated 25 million Uyghur people live in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region;

(b) many Uyghur people have fled their homeland and sought refuge in other countries including Australia;

(c) in recent years there have been increasing reports of violations of human rights of Uyghurs by Chinese Government authorities including arrest, interrogation, detention and incarceration in what are referred to as re-education camps; and

(d) many Uyghurs now living in Australia have lost contact with family members and relatives in their homeland and they hold grave concerns for their safety; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) raise concerns about allegations of human rights abuse against Uyghurs with the Chinese Government through whatever opportunities are available;

(b) assist in whatever way is possible Australian Uyghur residents to make contact with family members and relatives in their homelands; and

(c) expeditiously process permanent resident visa applications for Uyghur people in Australia on temporary protection visas.

(Notice given 11 September 2018.)

Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon

Speech time limits —

Mr Zappia —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MR FITZGIBBON: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) 2019 marks the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the Greta Army Camp and the 70th anniversary of its transition to a migrant training and reception centre—Greta Migrant Camp;

(b) around 60,000 soldiers of the Second Australian Imperial Force trained at the Camp between 1939 and 1945;

(c) more than 100,000 new arrivals passed through the Greta Migrant Camp between 1949 and 1960;

(d) the army training centre played a significant role in Australia's outstanding contribution to the Second World War;

(e) the Greta Migrant Camp played a major role in delivering on the objectives and commitments of the Government's humanitarian and nation building programs; and

(f) the Hunter region and Australia more generally remain enriched by the contribution of those who spent time living at the Greta Migrant Camp; and

(2) calls on the Government to ensure the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the Greta Army Camp and the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Greta Migrant Camp are appropriately commemorated and celebrated anniversaries.

(Notice given 20 August 2018.)

Time allotted —20minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mr Fitzgibbon —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

2 MR JOYCE: To move—That this House:

(1) commends the hard working men and women of Australia's farms and rural industry;

(2) notes that Australia's total farm production is worth $62.3 billion in 2016-17, which is up almost 30 per cent since the Government came to office;

(3) notes that the value of agricultural exports is $49 billion in 2016-17, which is up 28 per cent since the Government came to office;

(4) notes the contribution of agriculture, forestry and fishing sector's to Australia's economy is $45.7 billion in 2016-17, which is up 9 per cent since the Government came to office;

(5) commends the Government for its investment in Australian agriculture to create jobs and prosperity in rural communities; and

(6) stands with farmers across Australia facing severe hardship as a result of drought and recognises the Government's drought assistance measures.

(Notice given 11 September 2018.)

Time allotted —40minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mr Joyce —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

3 MS MCGOWAN: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the population of Australia has reached 25 million, a decade earlier than anticipated;

(b) there are significant opportunities to grow the population in regional Australia and the planning needs to be put in place and the plan needs to be developed together with the communities it will impact;

(c) this Parliament has completed multiple inquiries that outline:

(i) the actions governments should take to address the impacts of population pressure; and

(ii) actions to address the pressure on the telecommunications, infrastructure, social services, education and health care needs of regional Australia;

(d) the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities report Harnessing Value, Delivering Infrastructure (November 2016) called for the Government to promote a better balance of settlement through decentralisation to the regions linked by faster transport connectivity and particularly through high speed rail; and

(e) the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation report Regions at the Ready: Investing in Australia's Future (June 2018) called on the Government to state its regional development policy through a comprehensive Regional Australia White Paper, considering:

(i) regional Australia's population needs as part of the broader national context, including urbanisation, ageing, depleting populations in smaller towns, and migration;

(ii) the use of the skilled migration program to support regional development;

(iii) improving education and training of young people, in particular Year 12 completion rates—in regional areas;

(iv) the development of a national regional higher education strategy;

(v) the need for access to information technology, strong and reliable communication, specifically mobile phone and NBN;

(vi) the need for strong and reliable transport infrastructure to support passenger and freight requirements;

(vii) the role of amenity and social infrastructure, specifically the cultivation of social, cultural and community capital in supporting regional development;

(viii) incentives and strategies to improve private sector investment in regional areas; and

(ix) the role and funding of local governments to better support regional areas; and

(2) calls on the Government to deliver on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, Regions at the Ready: Investing in Australia's Future, including stating its regional development policy through a comprehensive Regional Australia White Paper, following a Green Paper public consultation process.

(Notice given 21 August 2018.)

Time allotted —30minutes.

Speech time limits —

Ms McGowan —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1 INCOME TAX: Resumption of debate (from20August2018) on the motion of Mr Evans—That this House:

(1) notes that the Parliament recently passed the Government's Personal Income Tax Plan;

(2) further notes that:

(a) this legislation gives everyone who works a cut in their income tax bill; and

(b) the effect of this legislation means that over the next seven years 94 per cent of Australians will not face a tax rate of higher than 32.5 cents; and

(3) congratulates the Government for supporting working people and providing the economic leadership our country needs.

Time allotted —30minutes.

Speech time limits —

All Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

2 EQUAL PAY: Resumption of debate (from10September2018) on the motion of Ms Plibersek—That this House:

(1) expresses concern that despite recent improvements in the gender pay gap, Australian women continue to experience sustained economic disadvantage, in particular women working in undervalued, traditionally female dominated industries;

(2) notes that on 5 September, early childhood educators around the country staged industrial action to highlight the need for equal pay and proper recognition for the value of their work;

(3) acknowledges the important contribution these workers, along with workers in other undervalued care professions such as aged care, health and disability care make, not just to our nation's economy but to Australian society; and

(4) calls on the Government to take action to support equal pay and recognition for women working in undervalued care professions.

Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm

Speech time limits —

All Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices—continued

4 MR HAYES: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that National Police Remembrance Day will be observed on 28 September;

(2) acknowledges the significant role police officers across Australia play in our local communities and the great deal of risk and sacrifice that comes with their duty;

(3) honours the lives and memories of those police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duty, and tragically this year we specifically honour Constable Dennis Green of the Western Australian Police Force, who was killed during pursuit training in West Toodyay;

(4) pays tribute to the families and friends of police officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout our nation's history;

(5) commends the good work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones of police officers that have fallen; and

(6) reaffirms its support for the nation's police officers and honours their courage, commitment and dedication to ensuring the peace and safety of our communities.

(Notice given 10 September 2018.)

Time allotted —40minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mr Hayes —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

5 MRS MARINO: To move—That this House:

(1) recognises the vital importance of mobile phone coverage to people living, working and travelling in regional and remote parts of the country;

(2) notes that:

(a) the Government has committed $220 million to the Mobile Black Spot Program to invest in telecommunications infrastructure that improves mobile coverage across Australia;

(b) over 600 base stations have already been activated under the program; and

(c) base stations constructed under the program have already connected approximately 10,800 Triple Zero emergency calls; and

(3) calls on the Government to maintain its commitment to regional communications.

(Notice given 11 September 2018.)

Time allotted —40minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mrs Marino —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day—continued

3 Privatising the ABC: Resumption of debate (from20August2018) on the motion of Ms Sharkie—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) in the 2013 federal election, the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP, promised no funding cuts to the ABC;

(b) since 2014 the Government has announced cuts of $338 million in funding from the ABC, comprised of:

(i) $254 million since 2014; and

(ii) $84 million over three years as announced in the 2018 budget;

(c) these funding cuts are privatising the ABC by stealth;

(d) many members of the Government are former staffers and/or members of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA);

(e) the IPA has advised the Government to privatise the ABC and has published Against Public Broadcasting: Why We Should Privatise the ABC and How to Do It;

(f) on 7 October 2008 Senator Fifield, now Minister for Communications, gave a speech entitled Fiscal Contraception:Erecting Barriers to Impulsive Spending in which he stated that 'Conservatives have often floated the prospect of privatising the ABC and Australia Post and there is merit in such proposals.';

(g) strong and independent Australian public broadcasting is important to Australian culture and the quality of our country's democracy;

(h) the Liberal Party of Australia's 2018 Federal Council voted overwhelmingly in favour of the 'full privatisation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, except for services into regional areas'; and

(i) no Government ministers present at that Federal Council spoke against the motion during the debate; and

(2) calls on the Government to reverse the funding cuts it has imposed upon the ABC since 2014.

Time allotted —40minutes.

Speech time limits —

All Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Notices—continued

6 MR HASTIE: To move—That this House:

(1) recognises the industrial action undertaken by Alcoa workers since 8 August 2018;

(2) acknowledges the cost this action has had on both Alcoa and its workforce, including families and communities in the Peel region;

(3) notes the impact the high cost of energy has had on working families and Australian industry, particularly aluminium refinement;

(4) recognises the resolve of the Government to get power prices down; and

(5) calls on Alcoa and the Australian Workers' Union to reach an agreement that protects the job security of their workers.

(Notice given 11 September 2018.)

Time allotted —20minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mr Hastie —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day—continued

4 AUSTRALIA AND INDONESIA: Resumption of debate (from21May2018) on the motion of Mr Gosling—That this House:

(1) acknowledges the importance of Australia's bilateral relationship with Indonesia;

(2) notes that:

(a) two-way investment between Australia and Indonesia was valued at $10.4 billion in 2016;

(b) 16,200 Indonesian tourists visited Australia and 1.248 million Australians visited Indonesia in 2016, making Indonesia Australia's second most popular holiday destination;

(c) cultural engagement programs like those fostered by the Australia-Indonesia Institute, the Australia-Indonesia Centre and CAUSINDY: the Conference of Australian and Indonesian Youth, are paramount to continuing to develop strong people-to-people links;

(d) Darwin has a key role to play in Australia's relationship with Indonesia through:

(i) educational opportunities such as Charles Darwin University's exchange programs, research groups, and international student places;

(ii) assisting Indonesia in building their emergency and disaster management capacity;

(iii) quick-response health resources like the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre; and

(iv) further strengthening trade capabilities and opportunities in the cattle industry, with Indonesia taking approximately 60 per cent of Australia's overall live cattle exports and more than a third of Australia's live cattle exports currently shipped through the Port of Darwin; and

(e) there are many areas in which cooperation between Indonesia and Australia could be strengthened for mutual benefit, including:

(i) countering transnational crime through cyber-security capacity building;

(ii) improving Defence capabilities and humanitarian aid/disaster relief assistance;

(iii) sharing the expertise of NT health professionals through clinical training and trainee/specialist exchange programs;

(iv) partnering on tourism initiatives like Indonesia's Beyond Bali campaign to provide opportunities to regional areas such as Eastern Indonesia; and

(v) expanding trilateral cooperation with Timor-Leste to improve humanitarian aid/disaster relief and strengthen maritime security, with opportunity for inclusion of other nations;

(3) encourages Members to reflect on recent occasions when the strength of the Australia-Indonesia relationship has been strained by decisions that, with the benefit of hindsight, didn't adequately balance all aspects of the relationship between our nations; and

(4) calls on Members to ensure our words and actions at all times demonstrate our deep, enduring respect for Indonesia and the value we place in maintaining a positive relationship.

Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 7.30 pm

Speech time limits —

All Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

12 September 2018

The SPEAKER (09:31): I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Waters has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (09:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The government is committed to ensuring that the aviation network is safe and secure for all Australians.

It is unfortunate but true that airports are terrorist targets. This was most clearly illustrated last July, when catastrophic consequences were avoided with the disruption of a terrorist plot targeting an international flight departing from Sydney.

Had those plotting the attack been successful, it would have caused an immense loss of life and been a defining moment for our country in the worst possible way.

Airports can also be focal points for serious and organised crime groups seeking to expand their operations in activities such as illicit drug trafficking, both within Australia and abroad.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill will help to ensure that Australia's aviation network remains among the safest in the world. This bill will enable police officers to appropriately engage with people at Australia's major airports in specified circumstances, to assess and disrupt potential security and criminal threats.

Firstly, the bill will expand on existing powers under the Crimes Act to enable police at certain airports to direct a person to provide proof of their identity where it is necessary on reasonable grounds to safeguard aviation security.

This new power is based on advice from the Australian Federal Police that the current requirement to suspect that a person is about to commit, or has committed, a criminal offence before conducting an airport ID check is no longer fit for purpose. Police intelligence or observations that a person is behaving suspiciously in the airport—for example, by taking photos or videos of security screening points—will not always meet the current threshold. This is not satisfactory in today's threat environment.

Reasonable Australians understand that, in some circumstances, it will be important for law enforcement to know the identity of people that are in our major airports. In a number of overseas jurisdictions, such as the UK, US and Canada, a person must produce their ID when flying domestically as well as internationally.

That being said, police have no intention of checking the identity of people at random in the airport environment, nor would they have the power to do so under this bill. Rather, police will exercise the new identity checking powers based on clear criteria in the legislation, and relying on their specialist expertise and training.

With the amendments contained in this bill, a person on the premises of a major airport may be issued with a direction to provide evidence of identification only where a constable or AFP protective service officer:

Suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has committed, is committing, or intends to commit an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, or a law of a state having a federal aspect, punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more; or

Considers on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to give the direction to safeguard aviation security.

Secondly, the bill will empower police officers to direct that a person leave the aviation environment, or not take a flight, for up to 24 hours.

The new move-on power will only be available to police in a limited range of circumstances, including where it is reasonably necessary to prevent or disrupt serious criminal activity at airports or on a flight, or safeguard aviation security. A person may also be directed to move on where they fail to comply with an identity check or a police direction to stop.

In the absence of a Commonwealth power to address security or criminal risks, police at airports may be forced to use move-on directions available in limited circumstances under varying state and territory legislation—leading to an inconsistent approach.

The new move-on power in this bill will ensure police can respond to serious threats that arise in the aviation environment in a more tailored and proportionate way. For example, police may exclude a known member of an outlaw motorcycle gang from the arrivals hall of an airport for a period of two hours, in circumstances where police have intelligence about an incoming flight carrying rival gang members. Issuing a move-on direction in this situation may be necessary to safeguard aviation security and ensure the safety of the travelling public.

Finally, the bill will create new criminal offences for failing to comply with an identity check, move-on or stop direction, punishable by a fine of up to $4,200. To ensure there are appropriate safeguards on the use of these powers, the bill will also contain requirements for police officers to comply with certain duties in exercising the new powers—including appropriately identifying themselves and informing a person that failure to comply with a direction may constitute an offence.

A patchwork of Commonwealth, state and territory laws currently apply across Australian airports. The bill will address some of this complexity by giving state and territory police and AFP officers, including protective service officers, consistent and appropriate powers to manage risks that are unique to the aviation environment.

The new powers will be available in all major capital city airports, as well as Gold Coast, Launceston, Alice Springs, Townsville and Cairns airports, and any additional airports that the relevant minister determines should be covered into the future, based on operational advice from the AFP.

Risks to aviation security are not static, and our laws shouldn't be either. We need to continue to strengthen our security arrangements to keep ahead of these evolving threats. We do this on the basis of advice from our operational agencies and I thank them sincerely for the work they do to keep the Australian community safe.

The new identity checking and move-on powers are necessary, reasonable and proportionate to the criminal and security risks at airports. Importantly, with this bill, we are striking the right balance between security and minimising disruption to the travelling public.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (09:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am proud to introduce the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018, which contributes to this government's commitment to ensure that Australians in the aged-care system are better cared for. This bill gives effect to the government's announcement in the 2018-19 budget to establish this new independent commission, as part of providing for better quality of care for consumers of aged-care services in Australia.

The introduction of this commission is also a direct response to the findings and recommendations of the Review of national aged care regulatory processes undertaken by Kate Carnell and Ron Paterson. I would like to acknowledge Ms Carnell and Professor Paterson for the review as it has contributed significantly to the government's reforms in relation to aged-care quality regulation.

I would like to express my gratitude to the aged-care consumers who gave their time to provide this review with submissions setting out their experiences of the aged-care system. I would also like to thank the consumer and advocacy groups, aged-care providers and their peak bodies, and the industry experts who made themselves available to assist my department in the development of this bill.

This commission brings together the functions of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency, the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner, and, from 1 January 2020, the aged-care regulatory functions of the Department of Health.

I would also like to thank Ms Rae Lamb, the first appointed Aged Care Complaints Commissioner, for her outstanding contribution to strengthening the aged-care complaints system; empowering consumers to exercise their rights; and working with aged-care providers to deliver better care and services. I would also like to thank Mr Nick Ryan, CEO of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency, for his outstanding and tireless contribution to the regulation of aged care and building a better system to protect consumers and promote quality aged care.

This single agency will ensure older Australians and their families have a single point of contact to raise concerns and ask questions about their aged care and to know the new commission is empowered to respond.

Consumers are at the heart of this reform, and the role of the commission will be to operate a regulatory framework that will protect and enhance the quality of life, safety, health and wellbeing of aged-care consumers.

The commission is to be responsible for promoting the confidence and trust of aged-care consumers in the provision of aged-care services including Commonwealth funded aged-care services.

The commission will promote engagement with aged-care consumers and representatives within the aged-care sector about the quality of care and services provided by approved providers of aged-care services and Commonwealth funded aged-care service providers.

The role of the commission builds on existing government funded consumer focused support such as the Older Persons Advocacy Network (OPAN) that advocates for and supports consumers to know their rights and have a voice about their care and services.

The commission will be led by an independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner. A single statutory office will enable flexible and responsive regulatory powers and build a holistic and joined up risk-based approach to aged-care regulation.

The commissioner will take on the functions currently performed by the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner and the chief executive officer of the quality agency, with specific functions also set out that relate to:

engaging with aged-care consumers, in the developing and promotion of best practice models for the engagement and providers; and

seeking and receiving clinical advice in relation to the functions of the commissioner, which is envisaged to occur through the engagement of a Chief Clinical Advisor, with an expert clinical panel to be established to support the role of the Chief Clinical Advisor.

The commissioner will be supported by advice from the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. This council will be made up of members with significant expertise in relevant fields and will be empowered to provide the commissioner and the government with advice concerning the functions of the commissioner.

This bill:

establishes the commission and proposes that it will become a prescribed agency under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013

describes the functions of the commissioner of the commission and its advisory body (the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council)

describes the appointment processes for the commissioner and the advisory council members

describes important operational matters relating to the commission including reporting requirements and

outlines use, disclosure and type of protected information.

A single Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will ensure that consumers know who to contact when they require assistance with a complaint, a concern or when something goes wrong. Aged-care providers will also know who to contact in relation to their accreditation, assessment, quality monitoring and compliance requirements. The commission's role extends to all Commonwealth funded aged-care service types, including residential care and care in the consumer's own home.

I will also introduce the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, which provides for the administrative matters required to transfer the functions and operations of the existing authorities into the new commission. Importantly, this bill provides for the continuation of appointments of members of the existing Aged Care Quality Advisory Council, as members of the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. This will enable the new advisory council to commence operations immediately, and will provide stability and experience in the advice being provided to the commissioner and to government.

These bills form part of a broader government's aged-care reform agenda announced in the 2018-19 budget, which includes further reforms to improve aged-care regulation and provide greater transparency of quality in aged care, which will continue to be implemented in the coming months and years.

Debate adjourned.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (09:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am pleased to introduce the supporting bill, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018.

This bill is a companion bill to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018.

This bill will repeal the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Act 2013 and the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Act 2013 when the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission comes into effect on 1 January 2019. In addition it will make consequential amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 and associated principles to replace references to:

the CEO of the Aged Care Quality Agency;

the Aged Care Quality Agency; and

the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner;

with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner.

More importantly this bill provides for the administrative matters required to transfer the functions and operations of the two existing authorities into the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Importantly, this bill provides for the continuation of the appointments of members of the existing Aged Care Quality Advisory Council, as members of the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. This will enable the new advisory council to commence operations immediately, and will provide stability and expertise in the advice being provided to the commissioner and to government.

Finally, the bill also provides a degree of flexibility to make adjustments to the new arrangements or prescribe other matters of a transitional nature in the rules.

Debate adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (10:37): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (10:37): It's my privilege to finish my contribution to the debate on the Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018 this morning, having been interrupted by events of last evening. Last night I was talking about the appalling cuts to Aboriginal smoking programs by the Abbott government in 2014. I note the amendment which has been moved by the shadow minister says:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that progress on lowering smoking rates has stalled following the Government's cuts to tobacco control measures; and

(2) calls on the Government to re-invest in lowering smoking rates."

I should say that of course I support that amendment wholeheartedly. What they could do is look at best practice examples of programs which have been very effective in impacting smoking rates amongst some communities.

I want to point particularly to one program which has been developed by the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health in Brisbane, called Deadly Choices, which explores the historical journey of tobacco use, its acceptance and its impact on Aboriginal communities. It's a tobacco education program which is available in schools. It's a health education capacity development program that gives participants an understanding of the long association with tobacco that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have had, which helps them gain insights into the current use and acceptance of tobacco in the community. But Deadly Choices is bigger than that. It's really a health promotion program which spins around the need to address tobacco. The one-term, six-session program for schools is delivered in a flexible manner to suit school and community environments. It talks about the history and impacts of smoking; chemicals and addiction; quit support; health resources; passive smoking; and Deadly Places, Smoke-Free Spaces. It involves a 715 health check and developing links with Aboriginal medical services or health centres. That's a very important thing. We need to understand the relationship between primary health services and prevention and the way in which you can spin off programs like Deadly Choices as a result of attracting people to get a 715 check and give them an opportunity to take action to safeguard their own health.

There was a systematic review in 2016 of these programs, and I want to quote some of the conclusions:

… many of the interventions analysed in this review report high levels of community engagement and ownership. Interventions that led to positive changes were 1) led by Indigenous community members; 2) implemented in partnership with non-Indigenous health workers; 3) offered as mainstream health services. However, the importance of Indigenous led commercial tobacco control interventions is three-fold. First, it demonstrates a growing recognition of the need to address the high rates of smoking in Indigenous communities—

which I explored in my earlier contribution. They continued:

Second, it recognizes that interventions will have greater community relevance if programs are supported and rooted in local community context. Third, it reflects the growing demand, made by Aboriginal communities, for control over health services through the full participation of Aboriginal individuals in decision making and implementation.

Further, consistent with approaches to Indigenous health knowledge translation, this review found a preference for 'within the community' messages. … This was made evident through the frequent use of culturally relevant health promotion materials that were adapted to reflect the communities' unique history and culture as well as the use of Aboriginal project staff and research officers in many of the interventions.

That's what Deadly Choices does. It's built around the expertise and drive of an organisation which is very ably led by its CEO, Mr Adrian Carson. It's got a wonderful board, a skilled board, which not only has Aboriginal people but is a skill based board. I think Bill Glasson, who's a noted eye specialist in Brisbane, is on the board, plus others. This organisation has been able to work around the funding arrangements for the Commonwealth to make sure it has a program which is effective, makes an impact and will reduce and has reduced smoking rates in its community. That's what this is about.

I say to the government: you have an opportunity here to redeem yourself, and the way you redeem yourself is by putting additional resources into programs like Deadly Choices, not only in Queensland but elsewhere across Australia, and other programs which are community owned and community driven.

Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (10:42): I am pleased to speak on this amendment to the second reading motion for the Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018 following the member for Lingiari, and I fully support his comments on properly funding community controlled public health initiatives. They work. They're very effective.

Smoking kills. Smoking kills over 19,000 Australians each year. Smoking causes many diseases—heart disease, stroke, emphysema and a range of cancers. Smoking-related diseases—lung cancer, heart disease and vascular dementia—killed my grandparents. Smoking is a leading cause of preventable death and disease in Australia.

Worse, these effects of smoking fall most heavily on vulnerable groups in our communities. Australians in the lowest socioeconomic areas are three times as likely to be daily smokers as those in the highest socioeconomic areas. Unemployed Australians are 1.7 times more likely to be smokers than those with jobs. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are 2.6 times more likely to be smokers than non-Indigenous Australians. People in rural and remote areas of Australia are twice as likely to be smokers as those who live in cities. And the impact of higher rates of smoking on these groups is exacerbated by lack of proper access to health services.

Big tobacco and their apologists might like to portray smoking as a lifestyle choice. As a pharmacist who has worked in mental health and drugs and alcohol for many years, I know nicotine is an incredibly addictive drug. Almost one in two patients in mental health inpatient units are smokers. The big tobacco companies know this, and they exploit it. They also know that plain packaging has been one of the most effective steps in reducing the incidence of smoking in recent years. Why else would they have gone to the lengths they did to try to overturn the original legislation?

As a result of the far-sighted and courageous policies from the Gillard Labor government, Australia became the first country in the world to introduce plain packaging, in 2012. The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act was fought by the big tobacco companies. They challenged it in the High Court and lost. They funded a challenge to the World Trade Organization, a challenge which was rejected in June this year.

In the first two years after Labor's legislation was enacted, there was a 12.8 per cent fall in tobacco consumption across Australia. Adolescent smoking rates dropped to a record low in 2014. In that year, 18.6 per cent of males and 80.2 per cent of females aged 12 to17 reported they had never smoked compared with 75.9 per cent of males and 77.4 per cent of females in 2011. As teenage years are particularly dangerous in establishing smoking habits, this fall is particularly good news. The post-implementation review of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act conducted by the Department of Health and Ageing was published in February 2016. The PIR concluded that the plain packaging measure has begun to achieve its public health objectives of reducing smoking and exposure to tobacco smoke in Australia and was expected to continue to do so into the future. The body of studies considered for the PIR showed the tobacco plain packaging measure was having an impact by reducing the appeal of tobacco products, increasing the effectiveness of health warnings and reducing the ability of the pack to mislead. The studies also provide early evidence of positive changes to actual smoking and quitting behaviours.

In simple terms, plain packaging is saving lives. Following the success of the Australian legislation, a number of other countries have adopted similar legislation or are in the process of doing so. We welcome and will support this legislation to make minor technical amendments to Labor's world-leading plain packaging legislation. But we also want to take this opportunity to tell this government that it needs to do more. Unfortunately, the steady progress on reducing smoking rates experienced over decades seems to have stalled under the current government. In 2017, the Australian health policy collaboration at Victoria University said on World No Tobacco Day:

… Australia’s Health Tracker by Area reports that about 2.8 million Australian adults are current smokers. Research shows that two thirds of people who continue to smoke are likely to die because of their smoking.

Health experts agree that Australia needs ongoing media campaigns to reduce smoking, action to counter tobacco industry strategies and increased support for proven tobacco control programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people with mental health problems, and disadvantaged groups.

To quote from Professor Mike Daube of Curtin University:

This is our most preventable epidemic. We know exactly what needs to be done, but the tobacco industry has developed new strategies to keep people smoking, and governments are getting complacent. It is especially disappointing that there has been no national tobacco media campaign for several years, although this year the government expects to get more than $11 billion in tobacco tax revenue. Prevention should be a priority, not an afterthought.

Dr Sarah White, Director of Quit Victoria, said:

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in Australia. Investing in helping people to quit and deterring kids from starting to smoke is a no-brainer. Prevention is a better approach than spending billions trying to treat diseases that are often, sadly, not treatable.

We need to acknowledge it is getting more challenging to help the remaining smokers. Most of those who have been able to quit, have. These are the ones for whom initiatives, to date, have not been effective. They're recalcitrant smokers. Now that the government has extensively abandoned its tax cuts to big business and big banks, perhaps that money could be directed to better understanding the problem of nicotine addiction and the ways to address it. We need to do whatever we can to support those seven-in-10 smokers who plan to quit but need help to get them started.

Smokers need to know the immediate and long-term benefits of quitting. A year after quitting, your risk of coronary heart disease is about half of that of someone who continues to smoke. If you quit smoking at 30, your life expectancy is similar to that of someone who has never smoked. We need to find ways to address the problems faced by those groups who have higher incidence of smoking—those in poorer areas, those in the regions like my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales, those with multiple and complex health needs, and Indigenous Australians.

There are quality, cost-effective, evidence based smoking cessation projects often led by public health units in public hospitals that are saving lives. I'd like to give you an example from my electorate. The pharmacist led smoking cessation project at the Central Coast local health district started at Wyong Hospital. In 2015, two of my then staff, Amy and Katie, came to me and said, 'We ask all patients on admission whether they are smokers. Then what do we about it?' This was a big problem. They'd identified a big problem. According to the New South Wales Population Health Survey conducted by the Centre for Epidemiology in 2016, 20 per cent of adults on the Central Coast were smokers compared to the state average of 15 per cent. Something needed to be done. Our LHD, the Central Coast LHD, was the second worst for smoking prevalence in New South Wales at the time. But in order to do something about it, health practitioners really needed to be better trained. I am pleased to say that Amy and Katie are now tobacco treatment and smoking cessation specialists. For less than $2,000 a health practitioner can be trained in nicotine addiction and smoking cessation. This may be an area where some of this money could be redirected. A grant then allowed Associate Professor Renee Bittoun, of the Woolcock Institute, to train our team. It was excellent training and an excellent investment by a department in a local health district.

Since then, the pharmacy team have conducted inpatient smoking point prevalence audits to better identify smokers and offer smoking cessation, like very brief intervention, and have updated the hospital's nicotine replacement therapy formularies to include a wider range of nicotine replacement modalities and to have them on hand so they are readily available as soon as somebody is identified as a smoker. They have also committed to better train all pharmacists in smoking cessation and nicotine addiction within the health service. I'm pleased to say that this initiative has led to smoking cessation champions in the wider hospital. The cardiology division now has trained specialists and last year held a training day for cardiac, neurology and respiratory nurses.

I won't forget the training that I was at early in my career when we were talking about smoking cessation and the time when people are most receptive. One of the junior doctors said that when someone came round from having a stroke or a heart attack, he'd lean in and say, 'I think it's time for you to stop smoking.' That type of intervention can work, at a time when people are most receptive.

Most people, like the dedicated pharmacists at Central Coast Health, understand that addiction is a complex health problem—it is not a lifestyle choice. But it is evident from other legislation introduced by this government, such as the proposals for mandatory drug testing of income support recipients, that some on the other side just don't seem to get it. Despite the clear evidence that our plain packaging legislation has worked and has clearly saved lives, many on the other side still think this is a 'nanny state' policy.

Labor have a long and proud record on tobacco control. We have shown consistent leadership, standing up to the big tobacco companies despite their formidable resources. It's now been 14 years since Labor announced that we would no longer take political donations from big tobacco. It took nearly 10 years for the Liberals to match us on that commitment. But, shamefully, the Nationals still haven't done the right thing. As recently as 2016-17 they took $15,700 from big tobacco companies. That is a disgrace, particularly when you consider that what they regard as their core constituency, rural and regional Australians, are at twice the risk from smoking as their city cousins—twice as likely to contract smoking caused diseases; twice as likely to die prematurely as result of smoking.

This is a really serious issue. This is about influence. The Southgate Institute were here this morning talking about the social determinants of health and wellbeing, and one of the social determinants they were talking about was the corporate or commercial influence in public health policy in Australia. As a former mental health worker and someone who has worked in inpatient mental health and drug and alcohol units, I believe it is something that needs to be called out and something that needs to be changed. We can't have more vulnerable people exploited by big tobacco and we can't have big tobacco continue to influence decision-making in public health policy in Australia—particularly when we know that rural and regional Australians are twice as likely to die prematurely as a result of smoking and twice as likely to contract smoking related diseases as people who live in the city.

I spent almost 10 years working in the mental health inpatient units of my local health service. During that time smoke-free policies were introduced across NSW Health. There is so much that we can do to support people so that they are able to quit, but we need to first acknowledge that nicotine is a highly addictive drug and it needs to be treated as a complex health problem, not a lifestyle choice.

The Prime Minister must explain why he thinks it is okay for his coalition partner to accept donations from companies who profit from the 19,000 premature deaths in Australia each year from smoking related disease. But that's what we see the Liberals and Nationals doing time and again: putting the interest of big business and big banks before the wellbeing of the Australian people.

As I said at the outset, I lost my grandparents to smoking related disease: heart disease, lung cancer and vascular dementia. In too many rural communities, lives are being cut short by smoking related diseases that are preventable. We know that this is the No. 1 preventable disease and we know what to do. What has to be done is that it needs to be properly funded. I call on the government to properly fund these community controlled, community led public health initiatives that are saving lives.

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Defence Industry) (10:55): The Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018 makes an administrative improvement to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 by increasing the range of suitably qualified, trained or experienced persons who may be appointed as authorised officers to undertake compliance activities in relation to tobacco plain packaging. This bill will allow the government to continue to contribute to its suite of tobacco controlled activities to improve the health and wellbeing of Australians across their lifespan and reduce preventable mortality and morbidity caused by tobacco use by reducing smoking prevalence and minimising associated health, social and economic costs. I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Ballarat be agreed to.

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health) (11:06): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (11:07): I'm incredibly proud to stand here and speak on this bill, which, for the first time, will require companies to look into their supply chains to identify modern slavery. I do so on behalf of a Labor caucus who led this debate from the very beginning. I'm making a contribution on behalf of a group of people for whom this is absolute core business. I'm really proud to contribute on their behalf.

Most Australians think that slavery is history. When I speak to people about their depictions of slavery, they often reach for pop culture references. One of the most common references that comes up is the 2013 Oscar winning film 12 Years a Slave—some people in the chamber or in the gallery may have seen it before. This is a truly gut-wrenching depiction of the trans-Atlantic slave trade that took so many Africans across the Atlantic to work in slavery in the United States. 'I don't want to survive. I want to live.' Those are the words of the central character who suffered at the hands of this brutal trade. They rung in my ears for weeks after I watched this film.

What is most disturbing about this movie is actually not the incredible violence that was part of this trade or even the fact that people were treated literally as property but the fact that slavery at that time was so normal for so many people that it was defended as something that was right and natural. We have come an enormous way since then and, of course, just about every person who we would speak to in this country would agree that depriving someone of their liberty is a gross violation of human rights. But society didn't progress to that view by accident. It took activists, thinkers, philosophers, politicians and community leaders to stand up and make the argument and change people's thinking, and they succeeded in doing that.

With that change in thinking, most people believe that slavery has become a thing of the past. That is not the reality. The transatlantic slave trade that was depicted in 12 Years a Slave saw 12½ million people transported across the Atlantic over 300 years. We know, because of the incredible work of the Walk Free Foundation, that today there are somewhere around 48 million people trapped in slavery in the world. As we stand in this parliament today, there are more people enslaved around the world than there have been at any other point in human history. We've got big responsibilities to continue the fine work that has been happening over hundreds of years to try to stamp out this practice.

What we also know about slavery is that two-thirds of those 48 million people are trapped in the Asia-Pacific, right on our doorstep. Even within our own country, we know that there are somewhere around 4,300 people who are trapped in slavery—our region, our responsibility. The lives of the people who are enslaved today might feel very remote from people who are listening to the debate today. But, in reality, their lives and ours are intertwined. These people are part of the global supply chains of some of the food we eat, the products we purchase and the clothes we wear.

As we deal with the bill before us, there are going to be lots of discussions about provisions and amendments and different sections. But I want to start today by talking about the people who are at the end of this horrible practice. Thailand is the largest source of seafood imports into Australia. In small parts of the Thai seafood industry, the abuse and exploitation of workers is severe. There are reports of people being trapped as slaves on ships and kept out at sea for years—literally trapped on ships so that they have no way to escape. Some of these people are reportedly forced to work up to 22 hours a day on criminally-run fishing vessels. In some cases there have been allegations of murder being committed on these boats. What is so disturbing is the fact that Australians like you and me can't be sure whether the seafood that is caught on these boats, tainted by slavery, is making its way onto our dinner tables.

There are many companies out there who are trying very hard to eliminate slavery from their supply chains, and I genuinely applaud their efforts, but there are others who are importing seafood from Thailand and who are not at the moment looking for slavery in their supply chains. That is the crux of this bill. For so long, companies in some instances and in some quarters have argued that what goes on in their supply chains is really none of their business. Today, for the first time, the Australian parliament is standing with a relatively united voice and saying that is not the case anymore and that we do expect companies to take responsibility for what is happening in their supply chain.

The clothes we're wearing right now may indeed also be tainted by slavery. Uzbekistan is one of the world's largest producers and exporters of cotton. For decades it has reportedly used forced labour, including child labour in some instances, to harvest cotton by hand. The Uniting Church have done a lot of incredible work in this area, and they have argued that this appalling practice may meet the threshold for slave labour. They've also found that 99.5 per cent of the cotton exported from Uzbekistan to developing countries is exported into Asia, mainly to China and Bangladesh. That cotton is then milled and converted to textiles, and it can very well make its way into clothing that's sold right here in Australia.

While it's clear that products tainted by slavery are sometimes on our supermarket shelves and the shelves of shops that we shop at, many people don't even realise that slavery is in fact happening right here in our own country. In my home state of Victoria, I have heard of some appalling labour practices that are in our horticultural supply chain. I spoke to the National Union of Workers last year in the discussion about this bill and more recently, a number of weeks ago, about worker exploitation and modern slavery. They are very much on the frontline of these practices. What they told me was absolutely shocking. They told me about a transnational organisation operating both here and in Malaysia that is arranging visas, housing and transport for workers. The workers are reportedly paid only $150 for an entire week's work. They're crammed into a single house with 12 to 15 other people and they're told that, if they don't work a 17-hour day, then not only will they have no job the next day but, indeed, their physical security may be under threat and their families in the countries that they have emigrated from might be under threat. These are the faces of modern slavery. People are trapped here in our suburb, oceans away from home with no realistic way to leave.

One really heartbreaking case that I have been told about was a man who was living in Australia on a bridging visa and he'd come here to seek refuge from his home country. He was working 17-hour days on a Victorian farm, being paid well below the minimum wage, and he crashed his car and died trying to go from work to the home he'd been given.

I want to share the story of someone that we'll call Sun for this debate. This story has been shared by Anti Slavery Australia as one of the faces of slavery they're advocating for. Sun was introduced to an agent in South Korea who promised to help her find a job in the sex work industry in Sydney. Sex work is decriminalised in New South Wales, so she was not committing a crime by coming to Australia to seek work. However, when she arrived in Sydney, she quickly became a victim of modern slavery. She was placed in a sex parlour and told by the owner that she must pay a $25,000 debt for her flight and her visa. She was told she would not receive any money until her debt was paid off. She was forced to live in an apartment adjoining the parlour. She was not permitted to leave the premises unsupervised. She worked 14 hours a day, six days a week and sometimes even on her day off. She was not allowed to take safety precautions in the work she was doing. The boss of the parlour threatened Sun with deportation if she complained too much, refused a customer or tried to go to the authorities for help. She was completely genuinely trapped.

Modern slavery is happening all around us. In fact, many people listening today might be aware that recently we learned that there's modern slavery happening within a few kilometres of this building. Earlier this year, Four Corners undertook an investigation into worker exploitation in foreign embassies here in Canberra. In their report, they told the harrowing stories of three workers who were kept in slave-like conditions by diplomats living right here within a couple of kilometres of Parliament House. Sadly, we know that these are not isolated incidents. According to the Salvation Army, at least 20 domestic workers have escaped exploitation from diplomatic residences. Some of these workers were reportedly made to work 12 to 18 hours a day for a fraction of the minimum wage and were forbidden from leaving their embassies. Modern slavery is everywhere we look. The problem that we face is that we are not looking enough and that brings us to the bill before us.

Tackling slavery and exploitation is absolutely core to Labor's mission. We are absolutely committed to stamping out worker exploitation and human rights abuses. Although modern slavery is all around us, today it is a hidden problem. It's not going to be uncovered, dealt with or stamped out without meaningful attempts to change that. Last year, after many months of consultation and discussion with stakeholders, Labor announced a modern slavery policy, and the centrepiece of that was a modern slavery act. We believe that a modern slavery act will have a real impact on this problem—if that act has penalties and the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner. The Leader of the Opposition and I were joined at the announcement of this policy by representatives of business, civil society and the union movement, including the wonderful now member for Batman.

When we announced this policy, we committed to penalties for companies who do not comply with modern slavery reporting requirements, because we believe that there is no excuse for not looking. For a long time, companies have argued that what their suppliers do is none of their business, and we just believe that is not good enough anymore. I understand there are different views in the parliament about penalties and I know that there'll be continued discussion on this subject over the coming days and weeks. I just want to make it absolutely crystal clear that complying with Australian law is not optional; it's not optional for the ordinary citizen, it's not optional for people that sit in this chamber and it should not be optional for big business.

What we believe is that fighting slavery is one of the most important things we can do to improve the human rights situation for people around the world. I find it difficult, frankly, to understand how we could create a regime that says that we would like companies to provide a public report on these matters but we're not going to require them to do so. I think we can make a clearer statement to the community and the business sector that, with them, we have a genuine and fierce commitment to fighting this issue. We are only going to be able to do that with a bill that contains penalties. So Labor will be moving amendments to this bill to introduce immediate penalties for companies that fail to submit a modern slavery statement and penalties for companies that submit inadequate modern slavery statements, with a delayed two-year start, recognising that this is going to be a change for business. For some businesses, it will be challenging to make that change, and we agree that they need some time to be able to do that.

We are also moving amendments to this bill to require the minister to make an annual report to parliament on the operation of the act and include in that report the list of companies the minister believes are required to report and those that the minister believes are noncompliant in not providing a report. If I can just make it crystal clear to the parliament, to the people at home who are watching, what's required in this act is for big Australian companies to make a report on what they are doing to ensure that there's not slavery in their supply chain. When we talk about penalties, when we talk about making a report to the parliament about who is compliant and who is not compliant, we are merely talking about companies above a certain threshold—$100 million is the amount that appears to be the view of the parliament. We are merely requiring them to make a public report. It seems to Labor and it seems to me that it is a pretty fair enough ask of business to just make that report. We do think it's appropriate, if a business in this country operating under Australian law with all the protections that that includes cannot be bothered to look into its supply chain to make a report, that it should be financially penalised and also penalised by ensuring that Australians around this country who are making consumer decisions in supermarkets, in retail stores know that there are some companies that are not compliant.

I want to make it clear that there are lots of businesses that have been extremely supportive of what is contained in this Modern Slavery Act. The report that we are asking the minister to make annually about compliance with the Modern Slavery Act will also allow the parliament the opportunity to speak about best practices and that's going to be really important too. For the companies that are doing so much hard work on this—and they are there; there are many of them—we want to make sure that the parliament has an opportunity to shine a light on what those best-practice companies are doing and, in doing so, create a race to the top.

We believe that penalties are necessary for the modern slavery act because we have a living example of what happens when an act does not contain penalties—that is, the UK version. The structure of the bill before us is very much based on what we are learning from the UK as it leads a fight to tackle slavery in its own region. There are lots of successes that we can point to in the UK act but compliance is probably, in fairness, not one of them. One of the main things that we can do in this parliament is, a number of the years after the UK's had their act in place, learn from their experience. And we can improve on it. One of the things that I believe we can very much improve on is the imposition of penalties. What we know from the UK version is that, in the three years since the UK Modern Slavery Act's enactment, only about half of the 9,000 to 11,000 organisations that the UK government estimates are required to report have produced a slavery and human trafficking statement. Just stepping back: the UK parliament requires companies above a certain threshold merely to report on what it is that they are doing to fight slavery in their supply chains and, without penalties, only half of the relevant companies in the UK are complying with that act. We're talking here about slavery, one of the gravest possible human rights violations that there is. I do think we can see and learn from that experience that if we are getting half compliance in the UK over three years then we are going to need to encourage our public companies, our big companies, in Australia to comply with this act, which I believe many of them will enthusiastically and willingly do. I do believe the UK example makes it quite clear that penalties will need to be a part of this discussion.

There is something else that's crucially important to the success of the UK modern slavery infrastructure—that is, the existence of an independent antislavery commissioner. The independent antislavery commissioner that is the subject of a second reading amendment from Labor is crucial to both supporting big business as they try to implement their statements and assisting victims who are trapped in modern slavery right here in Australia. I mentioned that there are somewhere around 4,300 people who we know are trapped in slavery in our country right now. You only need to read the newspaper to see that probably every three months or so there is a major expose of a slavery ring or some type of slavery operation occurring in our country. So the media are finding this when they look, but Senate estimates revealed last year that, in the last half decade, we have been able to secure seven convictions for slavery. There are 4,300 slaves in our country right now whose liberty is being deprived, and we've had seven convictions over five years. Clearly, there is a major issue with the way that our federal criminal law is dealing with prosecutions and enforcement.

Victims of modern slavery are often incredibly vulnerable, and it does require specialist expertise to encourage people who are victims to come forward, because we need their help to put human traffickers and people who are responsible for slavery in jail. An independent antislavery commissioner can assist with a lot of these gaps. They can support enforcement, they can help victims and they can work with the incredible organisations in civil society to help prevent and detect slavery in Australia. The Modern Slavery Bill that's before us is going to help and is very useful, but we believe that, without an independent antislavery commissioner, we're going to have an essential piece of the puzzle missing here, and Labor has made a commitment that in government we will implement an independent antislavery commissioner. If we're not able to get the agreement of the parliament and the various political parties that will represent this issue in the Senate, a future Labor government will make that change. I'll be moving a second reading amendment on behalf of the opposition, calling on the government to establish an office of an independent antislavery commissioner.

Finally, Labor will be moving amendments to this bill to remove forced marriage from the scope of the reporting requirements under this bill. Our current approach to forced marriage is not working. I've said that on the record several times and I'll say it again here. Since the time of the election of the government on the other side of the chamber, we haven't secured a single successful prosecution for a forced marriage offence under the Criminal Code. I referred to pretty regular media reports about the issue of modern slavery; there are also pretty regular media reports about the issue of forced marriage but not a single conviction.

Earlier this year, alongside the deputy Labor leader and the member for Sydney, we announced Labor's policy to overhaul Australia's response to forced marriage, and there are some very obvious problems standing in the path of victims of forced marriage coming forward. We announced that Labor will increase funding for civil society and establish a forced marriage unit to provide a one-stop shop to connect victims to support services, government agencies and assistance for Australians who are under threat of being taken overseas to be married against their will. That is a solution to the problem that we have with this very vulnerable cohort of victims of forced marriage. It is actually quite difficult for them to access support. They're in a very vulnerable situation, and it's often not in the interests of the people around them to help them access support, so we're going to try to help change that.

We are also going to fully remove the cooperation requirement for victims of forced marriage. Today, if a victim of forced marriage wants to get the assistance of the Australian government to escape from that marriage, they need to agree to cooperate with the police investigation. For lots of us in this room, perhaps that doesn't sound like such a big thing, but for victims of forced marriage it is a huge thing. Often people who are a victim of forced marriage have members of their own family who have tried to facilitate the marriage. So we've created a situation under Australian law where, if a young woman, for example, is the victim of a forced marriage, to get the assistance of government to escape from that marriage she has to testify against her own parents. That is not a good outcome for justice and, indeed, it is not leading to justice. That is very clear on the facts. We are going to fully remove the cooperation requirement for victims of forced marriage, agreeing that if a young woman is being forced into a marriage against her will, she deserves the support of the state in an unconditional manner.

The government has recently announced a limited trial to improve the support services that are offered to victims of forced marriage. We are pleased to see that small step forward but we believe there's a lot more that can be done. The reason I'm referring to forced marriage is because the way that this Modern Slavery Bill is constructed brings the definition of forced marriage into the reporting requirements for a modern slavery act. Labor has spoken to stakeholders about this question, and there are different views within the stakeholder community. We are concerned that the inclusion of forced marriage in this bill will have a lot of unintended consequences, and the worst thing we can do for victims of forced marriage is push that problem further from public view. We believe that that would be one of the consequences of including it in a modern slavery act.

If I can explain this clearly, the bill before the parliament is requiring big companies to provide a public report on what they are doing to check for slavery in their supply chains. In practice, if we add forced marriage to that definition, we are creating an opportunity for a company to look into the private lives of the people it employs. Labor doesn't want to create an issue along those lines. It's something that we will monitor, and we will continue to be part of the discussion, but we don't think at this stage that this is something we will want to include in a first draft of the Modern Slavery Bill.

I've spoken about a number of amendments that Labor wants to have considered by the government, by the crossbench and by the Senate. I'm very hopeful that the fruitful discussions that I've had so far with my opposite number will result in a modern slavery act that the Australian parliament can be very proud of. I will leave a detailed discussion on some of those amendments to the consideration in detail stage, but I want to make it clear that there are aspects of this bill that Labor would've done very differently. There's no question about that. I've particularly spoken about the importance of having a penalties regime attached to the act.

I do want to acknowledge on behalf of my party that we see this as a step forward. We're pleased to see that the Australian parliament is united in its view that modern slavery cannot be tolerated. It can't be tolerated because the values of the people we represent do not support it. I'm pleased to see the Australian parliament moving towards a regime that would make it clear that we believe, as a parliament, that Australian companies are responsible for what goes on in their supply chain. They're not criminally responsible, but we do expect them to look. To not know is not an excuse. That is what the Australian parliament is saying when we stand up and support this version of a modern slavery act.

We're pleased to see that the government's draft of this bill includes a requirement that the minister prepare a modern slavery statement for the Commonwealth. That is, for all the money that the government is spending on various things, we're asking the Commonwealth government for the first time to make the type of inquiries into their supply chains that we are asking of big business. That's a very welcome measure, and we support that the government is also being held to account.

As the shadow minister responsible for this area, one of the great privileges of my time in this parliament has been working with the incredible group of advocates and the civil society sector who have been working for so long to see something like this come before the Australian parliament for debate. I want to share the names of some of the people for whom I'm so full of admiration for their hard work and advocacy: Dr Jennifer Burn and her team at Anti Slavery Australia; Dr Mark Zirnsak from the Uniting Church; Heather Moore from the Salvation Army; Carolyn and Fuzz Kitto from STOP THE TRAFFIK; and the incredible Fiona McLeod SC and Morry Bailes from the Law Council of Australia. Andrew Forrest and Chris Evans from the Walk Free Foundation have done huge work on this and have been very involved in the discussion on the other side of the chamber, which has been hugely helpful. I thank the mighty trade union movement, particularly Aira Firdaus, Tim Nelthorpe and the amazing National Union of Workers, who are on the ground fighting worker exploitation every single day, and Andrea Maksimovic from the ACTU and the very hardworking people in that organisation who've been pushing this forward. Of course, I want to acknowledge Christine Carolan and her team at ACRATH. Every member of parliament in this chamber has probably been visited by the incredible women who run this organisation; some of them are Catholic nuns. They are a truly incredible group of people. I absolutely cherish the time that I've spent with them discussing these issues.

To the dedicated stakeholders and many others out there who are fighting worker exploitation: I want to put on record the opposition's absolute thanks for the work that you're doing, and I'm sure I speak on behalf of those on the other side of the chamber when I say that. We simply wouldn't be here today introducing reforms if it weren't for that tireless advocacy and commitment to making the world a better place, and I really do truly believe that.

I want to acknowledge also the work of the member for Dunkley, of Senator Lisa Singh, in the other place, and of many others who have fought very hard for this to progress.

I opened my comments today by talking about the abolition of slavery in the 19th century. I said then that it wouldn't have happened without the group of people who fought over decades—in fact, some organisations tackled this horrible practice over centuries. I wouldn't say we face a challenge of a similar scope, but we do face a challenge that is very large in size and very difficult to tackle. Our work to end slavery in the 21st century is going to require huge cooperation, determination and drive. This is very much the beginning of our work to stop this practice, but I know there are lots of people in this country and on both sides of the chamber who are trying to make big steps forward, and I really commend their efforts. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to establish an Office of an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to help victims of modern slavery and stamp out this sickening crime".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Clare: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hotham has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (11:36): I'm very proud to be here today to speak to the Modern Slavery Bill 2018. It is a lengthy path we have travelled to get to this incredible point where we are debating legislation to work towards eradicating modern slavery in Australia, in our region and around the world. I'm proud that, ever since I presented the House in December with the Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee's report called Hidden in plain sight:an inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act inAustralia, we've continued to action the recommendations of that inquiry to bring about this bill. I'm proud of the coalition government for initiating not only the inquiry but this bill before the House today and of the cross-party support for this bill as well. I'm also proud that the Morrison government has seen this through to fruition, with a debate coming up today.

This issue, in which we are now actively taking part to eradicate it, has been a significant focus of much of my time in Canberra since I was elected in 2016. I think it is now starting to truly resonate with the community. While we might see the odd report on the news about backpackers in the horticultural industry, for example, being taken advantage of or about foreign nationals being found to be in domestic servitude, until more recently these have been disconnected stories. Now these incidents are no longer isolated but are part of a bigger, grimmer narrative.

The term 'modern slavery' is slowly working its way into the public's mind and consciousness. Even the local media outlets in Dunkley have picked up on some of these activities with interest. Even though the subcommittee's report was submitted some time ago, the responses from the government and the introduction of the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 have truly woken up some who undertook business with a very complacent approach. The stories that we heard during the inquiry and beyond have captured the public's imagination.

I am horrified by some of these stories as well, and I'm sure members across this chamber and the community have been truly touched by some of the incidents that have occurred, but I am honoured to have been the member of this parliament who proposed that we seek a referral for this inquiry. That was as Chair of the Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee in October 2016, with the strong support of the then foreign minister. The inquiry was then referred to the committee by the Attorney-General in February 2017. We then put out an initial report, which led to a consultation phase and an initial commitment to modern slavery legislation. This was followed by the final report and then a commitment to introduce the bill by the middle of this year and to pass this bill through parliament by the end of this year.

I said when I first started as the chair of the subcommittee that I didn't want to do a report which sat on the shelves gathering dust; I wanted to do a report that actually led to results. This bill is the result of much hard work, not only by me but by members of that committee across the chamber and across parties, who put so much effort into bringing this bill about so we can actually tackle this important issue. Our inquiry examined best practice in fighting modern slavery both in Australia and globally. In doing so, we examined the UK's Modern Slavery Act 2015 to assess its effectiveness, as well as measures adopted in various other countries around the world—such as the US, France and the Netherlands—and how these approaches could be improved.

I must also note the work of so many advocates, without whom many of these issues perhaps wouldn't have been brought to the attention of parliamentarians and the wider community. I note Fuzz and Carolyn Kitto, who are with us in the gallery here today. There are many other people too—Heather Moore, Andrew Forrest and so many others—who have been strong advocates around this issue.

Slavery and exploitation continue to be scourges around the world. Modern slavery is an umbrella concept covering a number of different forms of exploitation such as forced labour, debt bondage, sexual slavery, child labour, orphanage trafficking, human trafficking more generally and forced marriage, to name but a few. It is estimated that there are currently more than 40 million victims of modern slavery globally, including more than 31 million in our region and an estimated 15,000 in Australia on latest statistics.

These crimes are already illegal under Australian law. They're covered by sections 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, the Australian government maintains an ongoing commitment to stopping slavery in Australia, and globally, through both the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery and the Bali Process. Nevertheless, modern slavery remains notoriously difficult to stop, and we must do more to actually enforce the legislation that is already in place.

In many cases, it is a hidden crime which can be inadvertently supported by the community. Some industries, such as the fashion trade, have already been exposed to problems deep in their supply chains. H&M and Zara, for instance, came under a great deal of public scrutiny over their operations and measures to prevent exploitation in their supply chains. The public reactions and the community pressure applied to these cases not long ago has given me a lot of hope that this legislation will have the full support of the Australian community, as we, as consumers, have high expectations of Australian companies, organisations and, indeed, governments to act ethically and to do the right thing.

This legislation addresses only one aspect of the subcommittee's report, such was its extent. It listed a number of recommendations not only relating to supply chain mechanisms but also relating to visas and a whole range of different issues. Transparency for businesses and entities in their supply chains, though, is one key aspect that our inquiry examined very closely.

Globalisation has created a serious risk of entities inadvertently accessing goods partially supplied through modern slavery, not only just within tier 1 but also within the other tiers throughout the supply chain. The depth of a business's supply chains can make it very difficult for an Australian importer to understand exactly where items come from. While a shirt may have, for example, 'Made in Bangladesh' on its tag, the cotton could come from Uzbekistan, the dye from India and the buttons from North Korea. This creates a number of problems. Firstly, our foremost concern is that Australian shoppers could inadvertently support modern slavery. One part of a shirt may have been manufactured using forced labour; however, because it is only an element of the end product, it may not be found out.

Secondly, competitive disadvantage is often created for businesses doing the right thing. For example, Haigh's Chocolates have made efforts to eliminate the risk of modern slavery in their supply chains; however, Haigh's can lose out in the market to those who do not have the same attentiveness to the risk of modern slavery and who can, therefore, outprice them. This also can occur in the horticultural industry, where you have people doing the right thing who are being underpriced by those who aren't doing the right thing, whether that's through imported goods or goods produced in Australia. Therefore, those who are doing the right thing can't compete either locally or internationally when there is exploitation or modern slavery happening.

As such, the outcome of the government's response to our report has resulted in this Modern Slavery Bill today, with mandatory supply chain reporting for entities with revenue above $100 million as well as a mandated central repository of statements. Furthermore, by creating an optional reporting opt-in for entities below the $100 million threshold, we can incentivise smaller businesses who want to help combat these crimes, and we have found that many do. The strong social conscience of Australian society firmly suggests that opt-in measures will be well received by a large sector of the business community. This is an incentive based approach. I note that this does not include penalties at this stage—that's not to say that there won't be in the future, given a three-year review clause—but the measures are still very strong. In particular, the introduction of a world-first measure to include government in the reporting requirements shows that we are not simply creating additional red tape for businesses but that we think this issue is so important that we are putting our own procurement and supply chain processes under the microscope along with theirs. This will really make a difference in the supply chains of Australian businesses and organisations.

This is an incredibly complex and extensive issue—I think far more extensive than anyone realised before we began the inquiry. Most people I speak to are astounded by how widespread modern slavery is, especially in Australia, and we by no means will address the whole subject with one piece of legislation. I especially want to congratulate the minister on introducing the legislation and all those ministers involved on their steadfast support throughout this entire process. I am enthusiastically looking towards the ways we can address other aspects of modern slavery, as this is only the beginning. We made a number of different recommendations in our final report which go beyond just this bill before us today.

I note that the stories received by the subcommittee during the inquiry have stunned many people. We heard from Sinet Chan, a young Cambodian woman who was sent to an orphanage at the age of nine but was exploited by its directors. We heard about Mohammed Rowi, a Malaysian man, who was given no payment for work in northern Victoria. I was also shocked by the story of a woman who was forced to live in the wall cavity of a brothel in Seaford, in my own electorate of Dunkley. These stories are a microcosm of the experiences suffered by victims globally and unfortunately reflect the abuse and suffering wrought by the worst of humanity.

Despite these horrors, the subcommittee also received information about the work of people who are trying to stamp out modern slavery and assist victims. I'm sure many of those people are here watching in the chamber today and also over the streaming via video. We heard from groups committed to stopping human trafficking in orphanages, for example, in South-East Asia and in Africa. We listened to some of the biggest companies in Australia and globally who are determined to stop forced labour being in any part of their supply chains. We spoke to faith representatives, unions and many others who continue to show compassion and understanding for those most vulnerable of people, seeking to help them in their plight.

This is indeed an issue that has brought together both the left and the right not only in politics but also in the broader community, and that was represented by the many submissions received and the interviews we had as part of the inquiry process. Together, these accounts and efforts play a very important role in bringing modern slavery out of the shadows. It continues to be a hidden crime, but victims are in our backyards, whether they be in Seaford, Parramatta, Cairns or elsewhere. We need to take action. I note that this is not the fault of any community. The perpetrators of modern slavery try to keep their victims hidden, scared to report their abuse to authorities. But, by telling these stories and understanding victims, we can grasp how to tackle the problem of modern slavery. That is why we are taking steps to eradicate it.

There is undoubtedly a clear need to tackle this issue. This bill goes a long way to doing so, but, as I said, we are only at the beginning. I believe the first three years before the review period will be instructive not only in receiving practical feedback but also in learning how we can better work with the business community and the wider community to improve reporting methodology and tackle modern slavery. As many people have said, though, we can't let the perfect get in the way of the good—and this is a very important step in the right direction.

Significantly, I must note that the bill does improve on the UK's Modern Slavery Act in a number of different ways. As I mentioned before, there is a requirement for a legislated central repository of modern slavery statements. This improves upon the UK act, which doesn't have that requirement, and where it has been introduced by not-for-profit organisations. We've included the Commonwealth government and government business enterprises in reporting on modern slavery—a world first. We've included a legislated opt-in for entities below the threshold. We've also included legislative prescriptions for what reporting should include, which also goes beyond that of the UK act.

More recently, I have been following the Senate's inquiry into the bill and I am aware of a number of suggestions that they have raised: for example, the need for a commissioner or, indeed, as noted in the Senate inquiry's recent report, an independent statutory officer—which is one of the recommendations that we put in our final report and one that I think is important going forward. There is also, I believe, a chance for further compliance measures—for example, government putting forward a list of those organisations that need to report and also those that have reported and haven't reported. Hopefully that can be included in an amendment process subject to it coming before the Senate. But, if not, that can also be implemented outside of the legislation.

I'm hopeful that, in addition to the review, we will have a rolling review. That also doesn't need to be in the legislation, but it can be a decision made by government to have a review of the legislation, not only after three years but on a rolling basis. I am also hopeful that, through the Senate inquiry report, which reflected a number of our recommendations, we can look into the future, through our review mechanism or through future amendments, to introduce an independent statutory officer who will not only sit separately but also, as we have seen in the UK, be a strong person for advocating for tackling modern slavery and connecting businesses, organisations and governments.

I'd like to thank all the ministers involved from the beginning—not only the former foreign minister and the former Attorney-General in particular but also those more recently, including the current Special Minister of State, who was particularly instrumental previously as the then Assistant Minister for Home Affairs. I worked very closely with him on this bill and I hope to continue working closely with him as this goes through the parliament. It is for these many reasons that I've mentioned above that I urge my colleagues and I urge the wider community to take a bipartisan approach towards this issue that should not exist in the 21st century. I commend this bill to the House and I commend the work that has gone into this across the chamber and across the wider community.

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (11:51): I also rise to make a contribution on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018. It's regrettable that, in a country like Australia, one would ordinarily think that we would need such a bill. But the reality is, whether we're talking about food processing or whether we're talking about apparel, we're an importing country and, largely, many things are just taken for granted. We are also a very accepting country. Regrettably, the number of people who we deal with and the number of enterprises that we deal with will put profit lines and will put cash, if you like, ahead of things such as human rights. Hence, it is appropriate that government brings forward the Modern Slavery Bill.

I should say from the outset that Labor will support the passage of this bill. We think it is a step in the right direction, albeit I will pick up on a number of the statements made by the member for Dunkley. I congratulate him on his contribution. I suspect he probably does have the view that if he had a free vote he would probably vote for the amendments in relation to penalties as well as having an independent commissioner or a statutory officer associated with the implementation of this bill. But it is a step in the right direction, though.

As a nation we do have ongoing responsibilities and commitments to protecting Australians against modern slavery, not only under our domestic laws but also in the context of our international framework. Modern slavery engages a number of Australia's international human rights obligations, as protected in a number of international human rights instruments—most notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These are rights which are absolute rights of freedom from slavery and forced labour, from torture and from cruelty and other inhumane or degrading treatments or punishments.

The protection against slavery is one of those specific rights that the International Court of Justice has determined is a protection lent to global citizens under international law. It's not just what you apply to your own citizens. As the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, stated:

It is up to each and every one of us to raise our voice against crimes that deprive countless victims of their liberty, dignity and human rights. We have to work together to realize the equal rights promised to all by the United Nations Charter.

Despite the widely accepted protections against slavery on an international level, unfortunately, the statistics tell us a completely different story. Many, many people are today trapped in a situation of slavery or enforced labour around the world. Regrettably, the statistics actually say there are more people trapped in slavery than at any other time in human history. According to the International Centre for Human Rights, there are approximately 48.5 million people in slavery around the world. What is most alarming and, I suppose, would shock most people is that 4,300 people are estimated to be currently in slave like conditions here in Australia. That is just simply not good enough.

Slavery remains hidden from many of us yet can be the result of our actions in what seems to be the innocent purchasing of products for our food, as we heard from the member for Dunkley. Whether you're buying a shirt made in Bangladesh not knowing how it was made and where the cotton, the fabric, the dyes or the pigments were sourced, or whether you're buying the various foods that we eat, as a purchaser, you don't and would not be expected to go through and itemise all those things to satisfy yourself before making that purchase. I think the Redfern Legal Centre put it in perspective when they said:

Sometimes people are hidden behind closed doors, sometimes they are hidden in plain sight. The person who attaches the gutters to your roof, cares for your neighbour’s children, cleans your car, makes your clothes or serves your food could be a victim.

To put it in even more perspective, I would like to share just one example of modern slavery here in this country when we look at some of the foods that we can buy from our supermarket. Many, many cases have been recorded of fish caught by Thai fishing vessels operating in South-East Asian waters which have a documented history of physical abuse and the deprivation of the liberty of their workers. Inhumane working conditions are pretty widespread for their workers. Nevertheless, we continue to see the seafood on our shelves and we continue to buy it from Australian retailers. These are things we do need to address and this bill will address.

I would like to mention an organisation in my community that is doing a fantastic job in a very practical way helping people free themselves from forced labour and what we would think of as modern slavery. It's called Asian Women at Work, a remarkable organisation in the community that does a lot of good work on the ground. Lina Cabaero is the coordinator of the centre together with Bich Thuy Pham, a Vietnamese community worker, and they do a great job. They go out and talk to women, mainly women from Asian backgrounds, working in what can be only be described as backyard businesses. A lot of the women have little English, they don't know their rights under Australian law and work under terribly harsh conditions. These women actually go out and tell them they're rights, encourage them to speak up, and also show them where they are being exploited. That is happening in our communities at the moment in Western Sydney. Simply turning a blind eye to slavery should not be an option. I would suggest no Australian would want to go out and purchase goods knowing that they were tainted by slavery or businesses that had slavery in their supply chains.

Labor has been committed for some time to the Modern Slavery Act. Unlike the British version of it, on which this Modern Slavery Bill is modelled, we think it needs to go further. We think, as the amendment indicates, that there should be penalties attached to it—not simply a voluntary reporting code for most organisations, but penalties—and an antislavery commissioner appointed; a person who will have a statutory role to not only help investigate but also address the consequences of slavery in our community. Nevertheless, in terms of a modern slavery act, it is certainly welcomed by businesses, by the trade union movement and, I think, by any fair-minded citizen in our community.

While it's pleasing that the government has appreciated the need for a modern slavery bill, the bill, as it stands, is not adequate. We are deeply disappointed that the government has put this bill forward without penalties attached to it. It has chosen to go down the path of a business engagement unit, where business can be consulted and liaised with. We think the bill needs to have more teeth than that. It needs to have an independent statutorily appointed commissioner for antislavery.

With a lack of appropriate protections, we risk the real possibility of companies exploiting individuals further as they find loopholes to get around the requirements of this act. Let's face it: as I said from the start, many companies will chase lower costs at the expense of human rights. I don't think simply having a voluntary reporting method for those companies under the $100 million threshold catches the backyard sweatshops that we know operate in various communities. They're not going to go and voluntarily dob themselves in. We need something with a little bit more teeth in it if we're going to be serious about doing something to curb modern slavery in this country.

I take some comfort from the words of Keren Adams, the director of legal advocacy for the Human Rights Law Centre:

Without financial penalties—and with no independent Commissioner to help enforce them—the new laws will lack the necessary teeth to make sure the worst offenders lift their game.

The Government must urgently address the weaknesses in this bill and send a strong message to brands that profiting from abuse will not be tolerated.

I think Keren Adams is right in that regard. The absence of penalties in this bill makes no sense at all. We cannot leave big business to effectively police themselves, and that's what we're being invited to do.

That's basically the situation in Britain itself. The experience in Great Britain is that, since the introduction of their Modern Slavery Bill, only about 30 per cent of those businesses caught up in the slavery chain have reported themselves, under voluntary reporting codes, to the government. If we're going to make a dent in this in a way where we want to play our part in eradicating modern slavery, I think we need to go further—and bear in mind that Australia currently holds a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. We have a leading role to play in this regard. This is not just following Great Britain along the line and thinking, 'We'll just take steps to emulate what they're doing.' It is time that we actually showed leadership in this space, because we have that seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

We should be encouraging others to stand up for human rights within their share of influence. The government is moving in that direction, and I congratulate it for that. It is regrettable that it has not sought to put the necessary teeth in this legislation to make sure that it really bites at the issue and acts in a way that has penalties attached for those that wilfully disregard the notion of dealing with slavery in their supply chains. This legislation fails to appoint a statutory officer to look at enforcement and to address the actual issues on the ground of modern slavery within our community.

There's another group I'd particularly like to mention in the short time I have left: the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking Humans, ACRATH. I know colleagues on both sides would have been visited by Sister Ng and Sister Diana Hayes recently, together with Genevieve Skruzny from ACRATH. It is a remarkable organisation. I have been meeting with Sister Margaret Ng for a number of years now, since I have a very large Vietnamese population in my community. Sister Ng is a Vietnamese Catholic nun of the Order of Saint Joseph. She has worked pretty extensively with prostitutes in our community. Here's this pint-sized Catholic nun who gets out there and supports women who, for various reasons—many of them are paying off family debts—find themselves engaged in the prostitution industry, the sex industry, of this country.

This organisation does a remarkable job working with people in need. They get out and work with them in a non-judgemental way and try to ensure that they support these young women in those circumstances. When Sister Ng was with us only recently, she said, 'Labor must seek amendments to the legislation. We do need penalties attached to this and we do need an independent commissioner.' ACRATH were specific about that, and I put their words on the record.

Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:06): I rise today in proud support of the Modern Slavery Bill 2018. When you hear the words 'slavery bill' or even 'modern slavery bill', you can't help but think that maybe we're about 200 years late. But the brutal reality is that, as with piracy, another rather nasty relic of the past, slavery—or, more specifically, modern slavery—is alive and well and flourishing in the 21st century. It is often as part of highly sophisticated global businesses.

What exactly is modern slavery? Today, slavery is less about people directly owning other people as a legal arrangement—although this sadly does still happen—and is more about a de facto form of ownership that is often hidden. The situation for those in slavery is, however, not much different from the slaves of centuries past, where people—often children—were trafficked, controlled and ruthlessly exploited by someone, without any viable option to simply withdraw their labour and leave.

For the purposes of this bill, and especially the reporting requirement it seeks to introduce, modern slavery is defined quite broadly to include all forms of 'trafficking in persons, slavery, slavery-like practices (including forced labour and forced marriage) and the worst forms of child labour (including using children for prostitution or in hazardous work)'. An individual may also be regarded as being in slavery if they are forced to work by direct or implied coercion or have restrictions placed on their freedom of choice, freedom of movement or basic human rights.

Most people assume that slavery ended with the abolition movement in the 19th century. However, using our modern definition, surprisingly, there are perhaps more human beings living in a state of slavery today than at any other time in history—and it is generally hidden. Unlike the slavery of the 19th century, as seen in the Belgian Congo and the plantations of the new world, slavery has today transformed itself to serve our insatiable global consumer economy and its demand for low-cost goods and services. Modern slavery may not be as easy to see as it was in ages past but it's there, it's appalling and it is our shared shame.

Modern slavery can occur in any sector or industry and at any point along the supply chain. Internationally, situations with a high risk of exposure to modern slavery include rural workers; women and children engaged in sweatshops; girls forced into marriage, prostitution or domestic service; and, in poorly-regulated jurisdictions, workers involved in construction, electronics, fashion and hospitality. Many who fall victim to these one-sided arrangements often endure lives almost totally controlled by their exploiters. They no longer have a free choice or meaningful protection under the law. They accept what they are offered, often live in a squalid condition and typically do exactly as they are told. They are, in effect, slaves.

The United Nations estimates there to be some 48 million victims of modern slavery worldwide, with over 4,000 in Australia alone. The International Labour Organisation estimates 11.7 million victims are spread across the Asia-Pacific region, in which, not coincidentally, the supply chains of a significant number of large businesses that operate in Australia are based.

Australia has undertaken to combat human trafficking and slavery through the ratification of a number of international human rights treaties. We therefore have an obligation to take all reasonable steps to require that companies operating in Australia do not derive revenue or any benefit whatsoever from human trafficking and slavery. Due to traditionally cheaper wages and less regulated conditions, a great deal of labour across the Asia-Pacific region is dedicated towards cheaply produced material goods to be sold into developed consumer economies, including Australia. The fact is that, as the middle class grows and currencies strengthen in many developing countries and economies, traditional pools of relatively cheap labour have contracted to effectively create an expanding niche for modern slavery. This expansion of modern slavery has invariably implicated nations such as Australia and the United States via global supply chains that feed an insatiable demand for low-cost consumer goods and especially for clothing, footwear, homewares and electronics.

It should come as no surprise that corporations are driven to maximise profit and minimise risk for their shareholders—and rightly so. However, there is currently very little incentive for businesses that are active in Australia to meticulously pick over their supply chains to ensure they are risk-free when it comes to modern slavery. This means that companies that cut corners or turn a blind eye to benefits from modern slavery, whether directly or indirectly, not only contribute to the sum of human suffering but may currently also enjoy a competitive advantage over those businesses that, in contrast, are doing the right thing. This situation, where proven, is more than unfair; it's obscene.

Modern-day consumers are demanding ethically sourced products and are only able to make informed decisions about their purchases when companies are transparent about their supply chains. The current lack of transparency around what companies are doing in their supply chains effectively leads consumers to avoid ethical considerations by taking retailers at face value and defaulting to price alone. As a result of the recommendations coming from the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into establishing a modern-day slavery act here in Australia, this bill will introduce a modern slavery reporting requirement. I commend the work of the joint standing committee in driving an inquiry that received some 225 separate submissions and held 11 public hearings around the country, with their final report, entitled Hidden in plain sight: an inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia, being tabled in December last year.

Following extensive consultation by government, the resulting reporting requirement will require large corporations and other entities with over $100 million of annual consolidated revenue to publish annual statements detailing their actions to address modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains. This requirement will also apply to foreign businesses with operations here in Australia. Annual statements will need to address modern slavery risks in the relevant company supply chain and detail what steps they have taken and will take to mitigate such risks. The statements will also detail the methodology by which the entity proposes to assess the effectiveness of proposed remedies. Modern slavery statements will be due six months from the end of the entity's final year and must be signed by a responsible member for that entity, approved by the principal governing body of the entity.

The bill provides for a statutory review of the legislation every three years to ensure the modern slavery reporting requirement remains appropriately targeted and effective. In a world first for the public sector, the Australian government will lead by example by also meeting the requirement to publish annual statements to cover any possible modern slavery risk in Commonwealth procurement. Commonwealth statements, together with the annual statements of commercial entities, will be available to the public via an online register. This will ensure that private individuals can easily access and compare statements and make choices, if they so please, based on that information.

The proposed reporting requirement will serve to assist the business community in Australia to take proactive and effective actions to address the blight of modern slavery. The Morrison coalition government wants to put these steps in place to help lessen the risk of modern slavery practices occurring in the supply chains of goods and services in the Australian marketplace. It's anticipated that these requirements will effectively encourage a race to the top, as reporting entities compete for market share, investor funding and consumer support. If any business fails in its obligation to report and take action, there can be little doubt that they would be punished by the court of public opinion and suffer a consumer backlash, far worse than a dodgy TripAdvisor report could ever deliver, tarnishing their reputation and thereby threatening their bottom line.

Counter to the Labor Party's declared view, this bill does not seek to introduce punitive penalties for noncompliance. Consistent feedback to the government during the consultation period strongly suggests that market pressure and reputational risk would be far more effective in driving compliance. In many respects the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 has sought to follow similar, highly effective legislation introduced into the United Kingdom in 2015, making it mandatory to disclose modern slavery risks and declare what actions have been taken or will be taken to address those risks. All modern slavery statements must include: specific information about the entity's structure, operations and supply chain; potential modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains; actions taken to address these risks, including due diligence and remediation processes; and how the entity is assessing the effectiveness of their actions.

As a further commitment, to support a market mechanism to combat modern slavery, the coalition government has committed $3.6 million in the 2018 budget to establish a dedicated modern slavery business engagement unit within the Department of Home Affairs to advise and support businesses to comply with their obligations. The Morrison government will also make sure that detailed guidance and awareness-raising materials are made available for businesses before the reporting requirement comes into force. This guidance will be drafted in consultation with experts from business and civil society.

This bill is specifically targeted to deliberately disrupt morally corrupt business models that rely on modern slavery and seek profit in Australia. At the same time, the reporting mechanism that the proposed legislation will set in place will, as has been the experience in the United Kingdom, heighten awareness of this global crisis. There can be no doubt that modern slavery is a major violation of human rights and a deplorable crime against humanity that can no longer be tolerated, and it should under no circumstances be ignored. It's for these reasons I'm very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (12:20): While the slave trade and slavery were outlawed across the Western world in the 19th century, slavery did not end in the 19th century. Instead, the face of modern slavery is women forced into prostitution, men forced to work in agriculture and construction and children enslaved in sweatshops. The Walk Free Foundation estimates that more than 40 million people are victims of modern slavery. That's more than 40 million of the most horrific human rights abuses possible. That's about 33 million people more than were enslaved during the history of the transatlantic slave trade in the 19th century. The more than 40 million victims of modern slavery include about 10 million children, nearly 25 million people in forced labour, more than 15 million people in forced marriage and nearly five million people in forced sexual exploitation.

This is not a problem that is distant for Australia. It is mostly happening in our region. About two-thirds of modern slavery victims are in the Asia-Pacific. For instance, the Walk Free Foundation's global slavery index suggests that more than one in 100 people living in India are enslaved. Many of the victims are slaves trapped in global supply chains of products and services that Australians use every day. Australia must be a part of the efforts to stamp out this heinous practice for the benefit of people living in our region.

Australia itself is not immune from the scourge of slavery. It is happening in our own communities. There have been more than 600 referrals over the last 14 years to the Australian Federal Police for modern slavery practices right here in Australia. This ought to shock all Australians. The Walk Free Foundation believes that there are 4,300 people who are currently trapped in modern slavery in Australia without a voice and without the strong legal protections that they need to escape. An effective modern slavery act is desperately needed for Australia to help fight the battle against the scourge of modern slavery, which afflicts so many around the world.

At our core, Labor is a party for workers and their rights. That is our very reason for being. Fighting exploitation of workers and abuses of human rights have always been central to the Labor mission. It's why we are in politics and in parliament in the first place. We will always be on the side of workers, whether they live in Western Australia or West Bengal. When it comes to modern slavery, one of the challenges is that slavery is deliberately kept in the dark and will continue to be hidden unless concerted efforts are made to expose it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant to tackle this disease. This is why last year Labor did the policy legwork to come up with a serious policy to tackle modern slavery. We took the lead in talking with business, civil society and the union movement.

Alongside the Business Council of Australia, the ACTU and the Salvation Army, we announced that Labor was committed to establishing a modern slavery act to mandate transparency in supply chains with meaningful penalties for noncompliance, along with the appointment of an independent antislavery commissioner. Labor's policy, being equipped with the right penalties and oversight, would ensure that no Australian company is either directly or indirectly engaged in modern slavery. We'd do this by ensuring that major Australian companies report on the steps that they have taken to ensure that their business is not involved in slavery or human trafficking in their supply chain. This will be publicly available so that everyone can keep these companies accountable.

We believe that slavery really should be above politics. We acknowledge that the government has brought forward the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 after some pressure from the Labor side of politics and the shadow minister, the member for Hotham, as well as parliamentary committees, representatives from civil society, businesses and unions. However, Labor does have three outstanding problems with the bill before the House: (1) the government has not included penalties for companies that breach the act; (2) it has included a business engagement unit rather than an independent antislavery commissioner; and (3) it includes forced marriage, which will likely have unintended consequences.

The act needs penalties to make sure that companies are transparent about where their products and services are coming from. Penalties are an essential part of making sure that the act can be effective at stamping out modern slavery. We should not be aiming for a compliance regime that is toothless. While Labor understands that the business community shares our vision to eradicate modern slavery, penalties are an effective way to keep business accountable. The royal commission into the banks and financial services companies is a timely reminder that we cannot always trust that business will act in the best interests of the community, including by complying with the law. The lack of penalties for big business is unsurprising from this government. It's a government that's done everything it can to run a protection racket for big business and, in particular, the big banks. In the United Kingdom, where a similar bill without penalties was implemented, three years after the act's implementation only about half of the 9,000 to 11,000 organisations that are required to report have produced a slavery and human trafficking statement. This is not an outcome that we should be seeking to replicate in Australia.

Given the severity of the problem, it's simply not good enough for companies to be able to opt out of fighting human rights violations and exploitations that they are involved in. Combatting slavery should not be optional. We shouldn't lower our standards. Stamping out slavery should not be an opt in. Companies that make money in Australia have a moral and community obligation to be open about where their products and services are coming from. The community needs to have confidence that, when they get to the counter to pay, they are not propping up companies that rely on slave labour. Consumers and voters have a right to know what steps the companies are taking to stamp out slavery. Penalties for noncompliance make this right effective.

Penalties give companies a reason to conduct investigations into themselves and to find out whether, even indirectly, they could be involved in modern slavery. This makes their business more ethical and more sustainable. As Oxfam pointed out in their submission into the Senate inquiry into this bill:

There is strong precedent for penalties for non-compliance to be a part of the Australian Act. The recently passed Modern Slavery Act in New South Wales provides for a penalty of up to 10,000 penalty points (over $A1 million) for businesses operating in NSW who do not comply or provide false or misleading statements.

There's no reason for the Commonwealth to take a weaker stance on modern slavery than New South Wales. The majority of the experts who gave evidence to the Senate committee on this matter, such as the Human Rights Law Centre, the Law Council of Australia and Oxfam, all wanted penalties to be a part of this bill. We should listen to the experts. This is why we will be moving amendments to introduce penalties for noncompliance as part of this bill.

Similarly, instead of another lapdog for big business—the business engagement unit that is currently part of the bill—we need an independent commissioner for accountability. The independent commissioner is needed to work with victims, to field inquiries and to follow up complaints. The independent commissioner is needed to monitor and scrutinise the government's work. The independent commissioner is needed to work with all organisations to help prevent and detect slavery in Australia and in supply chains. The independent commissioner is also needed to lead Australia's global efforts to fight slavery, including working with other countries and international organisations. What we don't need is another government funded cheerleader for big business. It speaks to the values and priorities of the current government—all about the top end of town rather than protecting the human rights of the most vulnerable and exploited. It has been estimated that there are around 4,300 victims of slavery in Australia, but, as Senate estimates has revealed, only seven convictions have been recorded for slavery in half a decade. We need a step-change with how this issue is handled to put a blow torch on the people and organisations that perpetuate this sickening crime here and abroad.

An independent commissioner is needed because victims are often extremely vulnerable. They need an independent body to turn to. We need an independent body to help fill in the gaps in enforcement and support services victims of modern slavery can fall into. The establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner has widespread support from organisations such as the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans, Anti Slavery Australia and the ACTU. Victims of slavery deserve so much more than a big business support unit; they deserve an independent advocate.

Finally, we are also concerned that forced marriage is captured by this bill. We don't agree that forced marriage should be one of the forms of exploitation that business is required to report on. Why? Requiring businesses to investigate the married circumstances of their employees, contractors and suppliers risks driving forced marriage underground. Why? Under this government, we have not had a single successful prosecution of the forced marriage offences under the Criminal Code. Victims have limited civil protections and struggle to access government funded support. Putting the onus on business to investigate is going to make it even harder for forced marriage to be discovered. As Good Shepherd put it in their submission to the Senate inquiry:

… corporate responsibility lies with supporting the wellbeing of individuals impacted by violence, not in identification and reporting on violence.

Labor recognises there is a serious problem in Australia's response to forced marriage. Victims have limited civil protections and struggle to access government funded support. Labor is committed to establishing forced marriage protection orders and to increasing funding for civil society, the establishment of a forced marriage unit to provide a one-stop-shop to connect victims to support services and government agencies, and assistance for Australians who have been taken overseas to be married against their will.

Labor is also committed to removing the cooperation requirement, which means that victims who wish to access government funded support must agree to cooperate with law enforcement. This requirement is damaging as, often, children and other victims of forced marriage must testify against their own family in order to access vital government support. The government's announced limited trial to improve support services doesn't go far enough. So we again urge the government to match Labor's forced marriage policy commitment instead of driving forced marriage further underground, as we expect it to be an unintended consequence of the provisions in these bills.

The Modern Slavery Bill is a great concept, a great principle, and I congratulate the government for engaging on this issue, but it can be better. It needs penalties, it needs an independent commissioner and it does not need to drive forced marriage further underground. Labor will not stop fighting for an effective antislavery bill and, as I mentioned earlier, we will move amendments to try and improve the substance of this bill. So, on this note, I support the bill but urge the government to reconsider on these matters.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (12:34): The weighty chains of slavery hunch us all. That is the basis upon which I am an emphatic supporter of measures to stop the challenges of modern slavery. The very foundation of the idea that the individual is sovereign over their own lives and has the freedom to choose their life, their opportunity and their enterprise is fundamental to the values those who sit on this side of the chamber hold dear. Some of us will never give up the pursuit of that noble cause and for it to be achieved for all people. That's why modern slavery must be tackled, and that is what this bill seeks to do. It seeks to do it in a cautious way in the sense that we understand that we cannot always do everything and change every circumstance beyond our borders but that, as a nation, we have a responsibility to be able to do what we can do to snuff out the practice and where it has a connection directly to this country.

What we know is that modern slavery continues to devastate the lives of millions of people around the globe. The most recent global estimate of the extent of modern slavery is that on any given day around 40 million people are victims of modern slavery, and that's through debt bondage, servitude, forced marriage, forced labour and human trafficking. Each one of those suffocates the lives of those people who experience it. It's a sobering human tragedy for so many people being denied fundamental social and economic freedoms to be able to decide their own destinies. These victims are exploited in a range of different industries and sectors, including agriculture and aquaculture, mining, construction, fashion and electronics. The government has one of the strongest responses to combat human trafficking and slavery around the world, delivered under the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery 2015-19. Since then, Australia has identified and supported more than 375 suspected victims and convicted 21 offenders.

Modern slavery distorts global markets. It undercuts responsible business practices and poses significant legal and reputational risks for companies who may be unwillingly or unintentionally the beneficiaries of its consequences. That's why companies have to be part of tackling this challenge. Voluntary action on these matters should always be encouraged. I know that many businesses across the world take it upon themselves, without those in this parliament telling them, to stand up and do what they can do, through their supply chains, to snuff out modern slavery. And when companies provide supply chain reports and details on the source of their goods and labour and services, and then report it through certification standards, it enables consumers to make informed choices.

It also raises awareness and visibility of the challenges faced from modern slavery. In its consultation paper, the Australian government proposed to provide clear and detailed guidance and awareness-raising materials for the business community. That includes providing companies with reporting templates, best practice examples and information about how best the business community can remedy and report instances of modern slavery identified in their supply chains or their operations.

We're very mindful of what other countries and other governments are doing in this space. It has helped guide us and inform our approach as a government. Along with the United Kingdom, Australia is supporting a range of measures to combat modern slavery internationally through engagement with regional partners. This bill fits as part of that important framework. It's an important part of the framework by having reporting requirements for some businesses large enough to do so. It sends a clear message that this crime is unacceptable in the supply chain of goods and services to the benefit of Australians. It requires annual statements from Australian entities, including corporate Commonwealth entities and Commonwealth companies, with annual revenue of $100 million or more, foreign entities with the same annual revenue, and the Australian government. The disclosure process will be fully transparent and publicly accessible, and it fits, as I said, as part of our regional role in combatting human trafficking.

The only other remark I want to make is why I think it is a sensible and a pragmatic approach the government is taking not to include a separate commissioner. The reason is we actually have a commissioner whose job it is to stand up for the human rights of Australians and to play a role in terms of our relationship to the world. It's the office of the Australian Human Rights Commission. I'm obviously familiar with that position, having served in it previously. The idea that we need to go off and set up another commission to do the job of an office that already exists, frankly, seems wasteful. It would be a much more efficient use of public resources if we put it within the framework of the Australian Human Rights Commission, an organisation that is already tasked and chartered with these objectives. Frankly, it would enhance the standing and stature of the Human Rights Commission by tackling these issues.

I know that there are people on the other side of this chamber at the moment who are being snarky about those remarks, and they're free to do so. Because, in the end, one of the biggest problems—

Mr Snowdon: Snarky—What does that mean?

Mr TIM WILSON: I'm not surprised by their complete indifference to human rights. You may recall that one of the reasons I was appointed as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner was because they didn't appoint one. For years they left the office empty. It was open. It was left for somebody to come along and do the job, but then, of course, the coalition government came in and what did they do? They appointed a Human Rights Commissioner to deal with these issues—

Mr Snowdon: You!

Mr TIM WILSON: Yes. I was the beneficiary of it. For those people on the other side of the chamber to lecture people on this side of the chamber about human rights, when they didn't even fill the office—it was their job to fill it when they were in government—shows the blatant hypocrisy and grandstanding that they engage in.

You know that this issue is important to so many people in this parliament. You know that this is an issue that touches all of us because it is one of those cases of 'there but for the grace of God go I'. Slavery is a curse and breeds in darkness—let there be light.

Mr HILL (Bruce) (12:42): 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.

Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (12:56): I'm really pleased to rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018. I'm very pleased that the coalition government is implementing this bill. The word 'slavery' conjures up images of Africans in chains. To many, slavery is thought of in terms of historic events—the things you learn about in school. Slavery has been a defining part of history for many countries around the world. We think of the battles fought to have slavery abolished and of those individuals who were brave enough to stand up to stamp out forced labour and slavery.

I want to pay tribute today to William Wilberforce, a former English parliamentarian who, in the 1800s, led the movement to stop slavery and fought very strongly for that. He was a great man who had a great Christian faith and believed in the importance of faith, morality and education. He resigned from parliament due to ill-health and died just three days after seeing the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 pass through the parliament. He was a prime example of someone putting faith into action and making a positive change in parliament to end slavery. Today many of us think of the 1800s and the abhorrent conditions that people used to be subject to.

Many Australians are blissfully unaware that slavery still exists, in higher numbers than any of us would be willing to admit. Sadly, slavery is rife in industries around the world. I know Australians would be shocked to realise how many products that we use every day are touched by modern slaves. Every day we're all worried about, for example, how much battery power our smartphones have. We rely on rechargeable batteries more and more, and companies use their battery usage as a selling point to get us to buy their products. Cobalt is a key component of lithium-ion rechargeable batteries, which are used in our smartphones, laptops and cars. Most of the supply of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A 2016 report from Amnesty International found that children as young as seven were being used as slave labour in the Democratic Republic of the Congo mining trade. The children were expected to work some 10 to 12 hours a day and received as little as US$1 or US$2 per day. The sad reality is that the likelihood that my smartphone wasn't touched in some way by a slave is pretty low.

When you're playing soccer for your local team or just kicking the ball around with your children, if someone asked you where that ball was made, you'd assume that China would have had some part in its manufacturing, and you'd probably be correct. What you wouldn't know is that soccer ball manufacturers in China can work up to 21 hours a day for a month straight making soccer balls.

When we are getting dressed in the morning, we never stop to think about the approximately 1.4 million children who are forced to work in Uzbek cotton fields. To put that into perspective, that's almost 3½ times the entire population of the Moreton Bay region. The Moreton Bay Regional Council is one of the councils in my seat.

These are just some examples of the many industries that are riddled with slave labour. It is hiding in our fashion, manufacturing and construction industries. I'm glad that, as a government, we're doing something to try and reduce it. According to the Australian Human Rights Law Centre, there are around 25 million slaves worldwide and almost 4,300 modern slaves in Australia. Of course, it would be great if this number could be zero, period. This bill will hopefully go a long way towards reducing that number of slaves.

I recently met with constituents of mine Judith Newton and Steven Peirce, who are fierce advocates for legislation to help curb modern slavery. I want to thank Judith and Steven for their time and for talking to me about the impacts that modern slavery has on our world every day. Whilst this bill won't address all of their concerns, it's a great start.

Modern slavery is a multidimensional issue. This bill primarily focuses on forced labour and the ways in which we can do our part to shut down this evil trade and ensure that those who are enforcing inhumane conditions are cut out of Australian business supply chains. The establishment of a modern slavery reporting requirement is the first step towards shining a light into the shadows of the supply chains where modern slavery thrives. We are leading the way. The federal government will consider possible modern slavery risks in our own procurement too.

But businesses need to know that this isn't just another box to tick; this is part of their responsibilities to their customers to implement fair and humane practices. The demand for cheaper products isn't a good enough excuse to even come close to justifying modern slavery. Companies which have $100 million in consolidated revenue will be required to annually report their modern slavery statements. They will need to report on identifying their key modern slavery risks and describe their actions to address these risks. These criteria will make it easier for businesses to understand their responsibilities in reporting and allow for consistency across all statements.

What's most important about this bill, though, is the transparency element. The statements will be freely available online through a dedicated register. This is a world-leading initiative to allow consumers the ability to judge companies on their actions and responsibilities as leaders in the modern world. As a nation, we pride ourselves on being leaders in the free world. We demand and deserve freedom, humanity, equality and fairness in what we do, and that should be prevalent in all aspects of business, no matter how big the job is in a large-scale business.

This bill is essential. This is what politicians are supposed to do. We're here to make legislation to help impact peoples' lives for the better. We are ensuring that large businesses and medium sized businesses identify modern slavery risks in their supply chains and do their part to stamp out the modern slavery footprint in Australia. I'm proud to be part of the government that's putting Australians first. This bill will have a monumental impact on ensuring that our business sector is fair, humane and also viable going forward. It's a great day for Australian history, and I'm proud to speak on this bill today.

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:04): I rise to make a contribution on this important bill before the House, the Modern Slavery Bill 2018, and to support amendments moved by the member for Hotham in this regard. The idea that slavery is some kind of shameful artefact from our deep historical past, of less civilised times, is something that is very prevalent in popular imagination. It is thought that slavery is something that was left behind us long ago. But the reality is that there are now more slaves today than at any other time in human history. That is a very sobering thought.

It is estimated that there are 45.8 million people who are living in slavery or slave-like conditions around the world. Our region is amongst the worst. It is critical that this parliament steps up to show a leadership role in this regard because modern slavery, as I said, is so prevalent in our region. It is estimated that two-thirds of people living in the Asia-Pacific are impacted. That is a terrifying thought. According to the Global Slavery Index of 2018, an estimated 15,000 are right here in Australia. This is not something that belongs to other foreign lands. This is not someone else's problem. We have a very deep, profound issue in our own nation that needs to be addressed. It has spread its exploitive tentacles throughout our society. The people who care for your children, clean your office, make your clothes or serve your food could all be victims of modern slavery, hidden in plain sight. That is indeed a point that was made again and again during the parliamentary inquiry which I was very privileged to be a part of.

Places like the UK, France, California and the EU have already introduced legislation to protect people from these appalling practices, and it's now time for us in Australia to take strong action ourselves. The shocking truth is that Australia currently has no formal mechanism that directly targets modern slavery in business operations or supply chains. We cannot go on in that way. This is why Labor has a modern slavery policy which includes supply chain reporting requirements and penalties for noncompliance. That is an essential part of any successful Modern Slavery Act, and that is an issue I will return to. Something that bothers me and my colleagues on this side of the House enormously is the lack of penalties for breaches in the current legislation. If we have learnt anything from the UK model, which much of this was based on, we should have been very alive to the fact that the absence of penalties is profoundly problematic.

On this side of the House, as I said, we are very committed to forcing the business community to investigate risk in their supply chains. Another very critical component that is sadly lacking in this bill is the establishment of an Australian independent antislavery commissioner. Again, I'll come to some points as to why that is so essential. The fact is that there are two gaping holes in this legislation: the lack of penalties and the lack of an independent antislavery commissioner. These are very problematic components of this bill. It will take a Labor government to improve this bill, and exactly that will be our intention, should we get to serve on the government benches.

The bill before the House today—I don't wish to take away from the government—is an important first step; it's just not going far enough. The reasons why you would insist upon an independent antislavery commissioner, for example, is that the business engagement unit that the government proposes in this legislation is really going to have a very strong focus on the business community and the assistance that can be provided there, whereas the role of an independent antislavery commissioner is a much broader role than just liaising with the business community. We would regard that commissioner as having very important functions to support victims of these modern slavery practices. The commissioner's role will be very much to work with civil society to help prevent and detect slavery as it occurs in Australia.

That's important because there are practices of it here. I see my colleague the member for Lingiari is here in the chamber. He and I have taken evidence in another unrelated inquiry that exposes practices that should absolutely come under the umbrella of this modern slavery act, but they will not. Without an independent commissioner, there is no pathway for those people to go on to talk about the shocking arrangements that are taking place. Some Indigenous artists in Australia are being asked to practice in a manner that, by any measure, would be regarded as extremely exploitative if not part of what we would now deem to be modern-day slavery. This is an example, without going into the detail of those cases, where people, either against their will or without informed consent, are being asked to participate in a work situation that is nothing short of a sweatshop in order to paint their way out of debt. That is right here in our country today. This legislation, as it currently is drafted, will not help those people.

That is an example of why we need to move these amendments and why I'm here strongly supporting the amendments moved by Labor. This bill needs to be improved, and it should be improved. I would love the government to accept the amendments, and perhaps this is an opportunity for them to have a change of heart and think: 'This is a good first step, but we can make this bill better. Let's work with Labor to do that.' I would love to hear the minister come back in and put that to the House. That's because, in its current form, the bill is disappointing.

There was a lot of concern about responses and reactions from the big business community towards this new kind of reporting regime. I take that on board, but we should be providing the necessary supports there for businesses to be able to report in open and transparent ways around the way they do business and, indeed, the way they do business across their entire supply chains. Yes, let's help guide and nurture businesses through those new reporting regimes, but let's also be very explicit in the provision of support and backing for people who find themselves firmly embedded in modern slavery practices both here in Australia and abroad.

The absence of penalties, as I said, really should have been dealt with before this legislation came to this House. The need for penalties has absolutely been one of the key lessons we should learn from the UK experience. But we've squibbed it. The government has squibbed it. I would argue that the absence of the penalties in this legislation means that in the three years since the act's enactment—sorry, back in the UK this was the lesson that we learnt: only half of the 9,000 to 11,000 organisations that the UK government estimates are required to report have actually produced a slavery and human trafficking statement. You're getting about 50 per cent compliance when you have no penalties in place. If they don't comply, you've got no mechanisms there to ensure that you reach your target. You're aiming for 100 per cent compliance here, but in the absence of these penalties you're getting approximately 50 per cent of people even being prepared to undertake the reporting process, which they are completely obliged to do. Without the penalties, that's what happens, so I will predict that that's exactly what you will see in Australia as well. That really is, in my view, squibbing the issue. It's going soft in the area of human rights, which, given the intent of this bill, should be front and centre of our reckoning and ensuring that peoples' human rights are being observed, being protected and being nurtured. That's why Labor has moved its amendment to introduce penalties, so as to ensure that this legislation's got the teeth it needs to do its job, frankly.

As I said earlier, I sat on the committee that did a lot of the work examining what a modern slavery act might look like. We heard from a lot of stakeholders giving evidence during that period, and the vast, vast majority of people who gave evidence in that inquiry called for strong enforcement compliance mechanisms. They were very much in favour of penalties if people weren't complying in meeting their obligations. Oxfam told the committee that without the penalties in place:

… there is a real risk that companies will not report under the Act. This would severely undermine the effectiveness of the Act and the goal to help eliminate modern slavery in supply chains.

That kind of evidence was repeated time and time again. The Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria made similar observations, and argued that the competition for funding and support alone won't give profit-driven businesses the incentive that they would need in a competitive market to investigate and disclose their supply chain. They are real concerns about the capacity for this legislation to live up to expectations. I think the government have very real expectations here, but they think everybody's going to play nice and, without penalties in place, they will get everybody on board and doing the right thing. History would suggest otherwise. Indeed, the experience in the UK is a very, very clear demonstration of why you need those penalties in place.

The need for an independent antislavery commissioner is also a lesson we should have learnt from others. Victims of slavery in Australia absolutely deserve more than just a business engagement unit. That is not good enough. They deserve somebody who can monitor and scrutinise progress, work with victims, civil society and international organisations to prevent, detect and respond to slavery. That's what Labor proposes: someone who is independent, who can stand up for human rights violations in this country and who can give voice to the voiceless. If a modern slavery act cannot do that, then it fails its first test. That is why I stand to support Labor's amendment and strongly urge the government to support it as well.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (13:19): I rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 and, like many of the speakers before me, I want to speak about actions that we need to take and have taken in our own backyard. As many of the people in this House know, including my good colleague the member for Cowper, who has been along for the fight, we have fought constantly for the last five years to crack down on exploitation, particularly of foreign workers, visa holders and those who are receiving cash payments in this country.

In our regional areas, that is predominantly within the agricultural sector. Inside the agricultural sector, it is mainly in horticulture. The reasons for it are very simple. The reason those who are out there, mostly labour hire contractors, wish to take the risk is money. They can make an awful lot of money if they do not pay their employees. Can I say from the outset that the overwhelming majority of our local growers and Australian producers are doing the right thing. They are doing the right thing. Unfortunately, they get bunched in with the bad seeds who are out there not doing the right thing with regard to employees or with regard to the people who they pay to work on their farms, to pick their produce and to keep their businesses operational. For me personally, this has been a long, long battle. We have been incredibly successful in working with the government over recent years to deliver things which crack down on this exploitation and which make a real difference.

In the horticulture sector, the way they make their money through the exploitation of workers is quite simple. In the horticulture sector, if you turn out 2,000 cartons a day and your margin can improve by $2 a box, that is $4,000 seven days a week. There's $28,000 straight up. You're automatically more competitive than your next-door neighbour who's doing the right thing. It is not just about the exploitation of workers but it is also about the level playing field for our agricultural producers. Without them, we cannot feed the world and we cannot feed our own people. I want to point out the duopoly once again. The purchasing practices of Coles and Woolworths allow this to happen, because they take the cheaper price, and that sets the platform. If you cannot compete, you don't sell your product and—it's pretty straightforward—you go broke, you lose your house and you lose your farm. I can understand that there are those out there who are willing to take the risk, because for them it's about survival. We need to make sure that there is balance. We need to make sure that everyone in this country is paid appropriately and that they are not exploited.

I'll diverge slightly, because I note with interest the most recent ACCC report into electricity, in terms of pricing, and the recommendation for divestiture. I think that is something which should be supported not just in the electricity sector but right across the board. If you have a market monopoly power and you are using that power to the detriment of your suppliers, the government should crack down on you. It has been the case with Coles and Woolworths on many occasions that they have acted inappropriately and have supported the continuation of this type of exploitation. I think that is just wrong.

One of the points I wanted to show is the case of one Emmanuel Bani. This is a case that has been settled and is in the public domain. Mr Bani employed 22 individuals from Vanuatu in the period 21 July 2014 to 11 September 2014. Mr Bani left those individuals on the side of the road with no passports, with no money and with no payment for that entire period. In fact, on arrival at Helidon, they were dropped off without food, without cash and with nothing to do for three days until he showed up later on. As I've said, this is all a matter of the public record. It was done at considerable expense by Maroochy Sunshine over that period. Every single one of them was a citizen and resident of Vanuatu.

One of the reasons I raise this case is the fact that these gentlemen, and of course their support network through Jeff Smith and a South Sea Islander association in Bundaberg, ended up in my office. We met with these gentlemen. They were left with absolutely nothing. It was a horrible experience for them. I am ashamed of our country that this happened to these individuals. It should not have been allowed. The Fair Work Commission has cracked down on Mr Bani. There has been a fine of over $200,000. But we need to ensure there are no more Mr Banis in the future.

The evidence that was given is stark and startling. Mr Aru gave evidence that he did not always have food to eat. Sometimes for lunch he would have half a sandwich, but on other occasions he had no food. On some days he did have food for dinner. He remembers cooking and eating some pumpkins and potatoes that employees had given him at Keller Farm for dinner, and that was all he had to eat that day. He felt hungry a lot of the time.

This is unacceptable. This is the reason we are cracking down on these types of organisations. These are the reasons that we have the Modern Slavery Bill before the House. This cannot continue in the great nation of Australia. That's the reason I've been so passionate about it, as have my colleagues the member for Cowper, the senator for Queensland Barry O'Sullivan and a number of others who work in the agricultural area and who represent agricultural areas. We do not want this to continue. The evidence is just terrible.

But I won't continue on that; I will talk about what we've done. What we've done is that we've established Taskforce Cadena. Taskforce Cadena is a multijurisdictional task force across the board—AFP, ATO, local police, local governments—to crack down on these organisations which phoenix their companies and quite simply disappear. I know that I've seen plenty of proposals around from different organisations and different governments where they suggest that there should be a register of all of these local labour hire companies. But—can I say to you, Mr Speaker—that will make no difference at all, because it is only the people who are compliant who will register. It is just them. The others will continue to pay cash, and they'll continue to exploit these people. It is things like Taskforce Cadena which will crack down on this very, very poor behaviour, and I certainly commend the minister for its establishment.

We've also provided an additional $20 million to Fair Work, which is necessary, but I think we need to approach this in a way which will be successful. That will require people on the ground because, as many of us in this room know, in terms of horticulture, it is very simple for people to go to a different paddock, with 300 workers for four hours, and then shift. It's really hard and very difficult to get hold of.

But I say also in support of the bill that this is clearly a good action. The government is putting forward a process to crack down on modern slavery in terms of this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: It being almost 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.

The SPEAKER (13:27): I just have a short statement to make. Just in the time available, I would like to inform the House that it is my intention to issue a writ on Monday, 17 September 2018 for an election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Wentworth, in the state of New South Wales, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull. The dates in connection with the by-election will be fixed as follows: close of rolls, Monday, 24 September; nominations, Thursday, 27 September; polling day, Saturday, 20 October; return of writ, on or before Wednesday, 26 December 2018. I thank the House.

The House transcript was published up to 13:30. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.

Wednesday, 12 September 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hogan) took the chair at 10:00.