Zero Slavery Complaints Is a Red Flag for Employers, Adviser Warns

Compiled with input from our partners

An Australian employer that received no modern slavery grievances in a year should question the result rather than celebrate it. That is the warning from Lynda Richards of supply chain risk company Avetta, and it comes as the federal government considers a criminal offence for large companies that fail to prevent modern slavery.

The proposed offence and its consultation

Companies with annual consolidated revenue of at least $100 million must already report on modern slavery risks under the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth). On 16 July 2026 the federal government announced plans for a criminal offence of failing to prevent modern slavery for corporations above that threshold. Firms that took reasonable steps would have a defence.

The Attorney-General's Department consulted from 21 August to 25 September 2026. Topics were the offence's scope and defence and ways for victims and survivors to seek civil remedies. It also asked about a possible Deferred Prosecution Agreement scheme, a scheme that would let prosecution be put on hold while a company meets agreed conditions.

What a silent complaints log may mean

Richards, Avetta's health, safety and environment principal, said too many organisations treat a year without reports as an achievement. She does not agree. In her words, she would "question how effective is our process if we're not getting one within a year."

Research from the Monash Centre for Financial Studies, published weeks before, supports that reading. Its report says a complaints channel should not be judged by a zero count, since silence can point to poor awareness, hard access or low trust.

What the largest companies disclose

The Monash study, led by Associate Professor Nga Pham of Monash Business School, read the FY2024 modern slavery statements of the 39 largest Financials and Materials companies in the ASX 100. It scored them on a new 40-question framework. The average was 14.28 questions answered, about 36 per cent. Five companies reached 20 or more and nine fell below 10. Materials firms averaged 17 points and Financials 11.

Disclosure was thinnest after a complaint is made. Just 10 per cent said they had consulted affected stakeholders when designing their mechanisms. Five per cent disclosed remediation outcomes, and none reported the average or median time remediation takes. Only 23 per cent disclosed involving an independent third party in reviewing the mechanism. The authors note that the study looks only at what firms disclose, and cannot show whether the practices are in place.

Contractors' workers and the HR role

Richards said the Act had moved things forward, but enforcement lagged. In her view it is "still paper." She also worried that companies can exploit workers while still showing compliance.

Richards held the modern slavery portfolio at Sydney Airport. Complaints from a contractor's staff can slip between the cracks, she said, because HR may set aside a whistleblower report that does not come from a direct employee. At the airport, she recalled, suppliers came to the airport team instead of using their own grievance lines. Temporary and casual workers may feel they lack the voice of a full-time employee. Anonymous tip-offs to the Fair Work Ombudsman reached a record high in 2025-26.

She wants HR and procurement to work together on a map of suppliers that use labour, including any further subcontracting. Contract clauses on modern slavery are seldom tested, she said. She also cautioned that squeezing labour hire contracts ignores the risk that sourcing pressure puts on the supplier, and said grievance systems should be tested by an external independent party, not only internally.

Our View

The Monash findings concern disclosure on paper, and Richards speaks from her own experience, so neither proves that practice is weak. If the offence goes ahead, the quality of grievance channels could come under closer scrutiny, with the reasonable-steps defence as the test. Companies could then be asked for evidence that their channels work, and an empty log may not be convincing. The details of that defence, on which the consultation gathered views, will decide how much testing employers must show.

Source: Human Resources Director