One-fifth of Australian imports have probable links to forced labour

The evidence that a lot of the things we buy in Australia were made under coercive conditions continues to grow, yet we still have no laws against importing products from places where the exploitation occurs.

Instead, we leave it up to big companies to tell us how well they’re doing at making sure they don’t have modern slavery in their supply chains.

Under the current system, companies with $100 million or more in annual revenue are required to undergo an annual self-evaluation of the risks of forced labour in their supply chains and explain the steps they’re taking to mitigate these risks.

For many companies, these modern slavery reports have turned into tick-the-box exercises. There’s no penalty if the reports are poor quality, or if they’re not filed at all.

Anti-slavery framework under review

Members of the federal government are aware of the shortcomings. Earlier this year, Australia’s Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Chris Evans, recommended a number of improvements to Australia’s anti-slavery framework, which is currently under review.

They are more incremental than structural, and include giving the Anti-Slavery Commissioner the power to declare that a particular product, service, or industry carries a high risk of being involved in modern slavery.

This designation would mean companies doing business in these areas would have to specifically address how they’re managing the heightened risks. They would also be required to exercise due diligence in ridding their supply chains of forced labour.

“We have known for years that the Modern Slavery Act’s transparency measures alone have not created meaningful impact for exploited workers. Currently, reporting is mandatory but taking action is not, leaving workers exposed and responsible businesses disadvantaged,” Evans says.

One in five of imports under suspicion

Meanwhile, consumer goods with a probable connection to forced labour continue to pour into the country.

In February this year,  Australian anti-slavery group the Walk Free Foundation and supply chain management firm Fair Supply released the findings of a research project based on 2024 import data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

It found that 21.5% of all goods imported into Australia that year were from countries and regions with known forced labour issues, including 89% of all apparel and clothing.

Many other everyday goods – including phones, computers, footwear and vehicle parts – were also found to be at risk of being manufactured by exploited workers in these regions, the Walk Free Foundation reports. The combined value of these imports was $98.6 billion.

(The exporting countries in question were China, Malaysia, India, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Brazil, Argentina, Nepal and Japan.)

Anti-slavery expert and founder of the Australian human rights governance advisory service Fair Futures, Fiona David, says the research is further evidence that the Australian government must do more.

“Forced labour permeates Australian supply chains and exposes businesses and consumers to products made with forced labour,” David says.

“While the Modern Slavery Act has helped very large companies to begin focusing on this issue, the government still has more work to do, both to set the rules but also [to] provide the tools that businesses need to undertake the kind of due diligence that will lead to real change.”

Reforms to the Act are also needed to level the playing field for businesses that do take steps to ensure their supply chains are slavery free, David says. Putting greater pressure on companies to avoid sourcing from high-risk countries and regions would also facilitate cross-industry collaboration, she points out.

In countries such as the Netherlands and Germany, for instance, governments support initiatives that bring businesses together to collaborate on responsible sourcing, something that has yet to occur in Australia.

Other countries are cracking down

The supply chains of multinational companies stretch far and wide and often include many hundreds of suppliers. As of May 2025, for instance, Kmart Australia had 856 businesses in its supply chain, many of which have thousands of employees. Transparency around working conditions in supplier factories for large companies like Kmart has long been lacking.

But overseas, major companies are increasingly being asked to prove they have nothing to hide.

In December last year, for instance, police in Italy paid a visit to the headquarters of 13 high-end fashion firms, including big names such as Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, Prada, Ferragamo, Givenchy Italia, Alexander McQueen Italia, Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent.

The authorities were investigating the possible exploitation of workers at the firms’ subcontractors and demanded documentation of supply chains. It was a warning shot more than an enforcement action, though five other high-end brands in Italy were placed under court-appointed administration due to links to forced labour following an earlier investigation. 

In May 2025, the UK Supreme Court rejected an application by the appliance manufacturer Dyson to appeal a lawsuit brought by Nepalese and Bangladeshi workers who claimed they were subject to forced labour and false imprisonment while working at Malaysian factories that supplied Dyson.

The groundbreaking case means Dyson will potentially be held responsible in the English courts for what goes on in its overseas supplier factories.

Similarly, eight Brazilian workers filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in the US in April 2025, saying they had been subject to forced labour and human trafficking by a Starbucks supplier (the case is ongoing).

Along with legal and government actions, reports of labour exploitation continue to pile up.

In January this year, the New York-based not-for-profit advocacy group China Labor Watch published the findings of its investigation of a factory in China employing around 4500 workers that manufactures Labubu dolls. The report cited excessive overtime and a lack of adequate health and safety protections, among other issues.

Earlier this year, CHOICE reported on the efforts by indigenous community groups to stop logging companies from destroying forests in Malaysia. For years, a significant portion of the resulting wood products have been exported to Australia.

What needs to change?

Fair Futures is calling on the federal government to enact several reforms, including:

• An outright ban on the importation of goods to Australia produced with forced labour or slavery.
• Due diligence laws requiring businesses to take reasonable steps to respond to known risks of forced labour.
• Government-backed, multi-stakeholder initiatives to encourage cross-industry collaboration on clean supply chains.

“Without these, the burden is left to consumers to attempt to unravel the provenance of every good and service they buy, in an effort to understand risk exposure,” David says. 

In her view, state and federal governments have tools at their disposal that they’re not using.

“Governments can use their control over imports to drive up traceability of products, and increase access to high quality, reliable information about risk that enables businesses to act responsibly. Governments can also create safe spaces where businesses can come together with civil society and other experts, to build leverage and find ways to build cleaner supply chains.”

---

Andy Kollmorgen

Andy Kollmorgen is the Investigations Editor at CHOICE. He reports on a wide range of issues in the consumer marketplace, with a focus on financial harm to vulnerable people at the hands of corporations and businesses. Prior to CHOICE, Andy worked at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and at the Australian Financial Review along with a number of other news organisations. Andy is a former member of the NSW Fair Trading Advisory Council. He has a Bachelor of Arts in English from New York University. LinkedIn

Andy Kollmorgen is the Investigations Editor at CHOICE. He reports on a wide range of issues in the consumer marketplace, with a focus on financial harm to vulnerable people at the hands of corporations and businesses. Prior to CHOICE, Andy worked at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and at the Australian Financial Review along with a number of other news organisations. Andy is a former member of the NSW Fair Trading Advisory Council. He has a Bachelor of Arts in English from New York University. LinkedIn