Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (17:42): Slavery is perhaps the most abhorrent practice in human history, and I doubt that that's a matter up for debate. If we all agree on how deplorable slavery is then I fail to see why those opposite would seek to make the elimination of modern slavery from international supply chains a partisan issue. But, then again, history shows that nothing is above petty partisan politics when it comes to the Australian Labor Party, especially when they are doing the bidding of their union masters. Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator RENNICK: Do you think that abolishing slavery is a joke, Senator Keneally? I don't think so. Given the sharp decline in the relevance of trade unions, evidenced by the fact that they now only represent 14 per cent of Australian workers, you would think that this extremely sectional interest group would wake up and accept that its influence has diminished in line with its dwindling representation. Yet, apparently not. Any opportunity to press their thumb on the scale, to leverage undue influence for their flagging enterprise, is grasped with gusto. And that's what today's matter of public importance from the Labor Party is all about. Senator Pratt: Well it's easy to fix! Senator RENNICK: Senator Pratt, please take this seriously. Surely this is a new low, even for those opposite. At a time when the primary concern of this government is ensuring that as many Australians as possible are supported as we emerge from a global pandemic, the opposition can't resist making a petty political point, a point dripping with self-interest on an issue that should be above party politics and factional interests. Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator RENNICK: Senator Keneally, please. The fact remains— Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator RENNICK: Senator Keneally, I didn't interrupt you. The fact remains that ending modern slavery is an extremely noble and worthwhile goal and one that we should all be committed to. The Modern Slavery Act will hold large businesses to account and ensure they work earnestly to mitigate the risk of modern slavery within their supply chains. The act is the strongest legislation of its kind in the world. The act sets clear, mandatory criteria that businesses must meet. It creates a central register to house statements on modern slavery and even requires the government itself to report on modern slavery risks in procurement. The Australian government has a strong and effective national response to modern slavery and human trafficking. There are a set of powerful criminal offences, with up to 25 years imprisonment, available as a punishment, as well as specialist investigative teams working within the Australian Federal Police. The government works extremely hard to ensure that Australia's Modern Slavery Act is world leading and drives businesses into a race to the top. Reporting requirements and the risk to brand reputation mean it is in the best interests of businesses to comprehensively deal with even the suggestion of slavish exploitation within their supply chains. Good supply-chain management and ethically sourcing products are big winners in the modern marketplace. One need only look at McDonald's talking up their ethical sourcing of coffee to see that this is a path that big corporates are keen to take. And consumers support it, meaning it is as much a good business decision as a moral one. Let's not pretend that anything about this legislation was rushed or that extensive consultation wasn't carried out. Consultation included a detailed public discussion paper, released in August 2017; roundtables, with representatives across the spectrum, held in September and October 2017; more than 50 meetings with stakeholders; and almost 100 written submissions. To put it bluntly, this was an extensive process that sought as much feedback and input as possible. The government have also released guidance on reducing the risk of modern slavery within the context of our COVID-19 response. The call to action around this initiative is one which unites all parts of society, yet those opposite seek to criticise and divide on this very issue. Public nominations for the expert advisory group to assist with the implementation of the act were sought in February this year. The group is a diverse one, made up of business and academic figures as well as the previous chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Chris Crewther, who is incredibly well qualified and has the experience to be in this group. Chris led from the start on this issue and chaired the parliamentary inquiry into the drafting of the legislation. Independent experts and people with pragmatic experience in this field, like those on the advisory group, are the people best placed to guide the application of the legislation, to reliably identify and remedy problems within supply chains and to remain true to the spirit and objectives of the act. It makes sense to combine the best theoretical and academic minds on the subject with best practice from industry. This is what the exceptional appointees to the expert advisory group bring to the table. This is the best path forward to ensure that trends and practices in this area are monitored and our responses stay ahead of attempts to disguise this wicked practice. To me, it is ludicrous to suggest that a union representative would somehow make any positive difference to this group, which is intended to be non-political and seeks to match the best industry leaders with leading academics with experience in and understanding of the field. Unions have a chequered history when it comes to protecting workers, often placing their own interests first. You need only look at Bill Shorten's time as AWU secretary—ask the workers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator Rennick, order! Just before my colleagues jump, I would urge you, under the standing orders, to refer to those in the other chamber by their correct title, please. Senator RENNICK: Sure. Ask the workers on the EastLink project how they feel about union representation. So-called flexibility measures ripped workers off substantially. The builder then paid the union almost $300,000 over the next few years. Unions look after their mates in the ALP and vice versa. Then there was the Winslow incident, where workers had their union fees paid by the company, seemingly without their knowledge—just the block of members being chucked into the AWU for no apparent reason. Or there's Cleanevent, where workers were signed up to the union without knowing, where the union numbers delivered diminished penalty rates of hardworking cleaners. Again, to enhance union influence in the Labor Party, cleaners and construction workers have been clear victims of modern trade unions. It is a disgrace. Finally, if Labor are concerned about unions having more influence, why not bring them to the table on an issue where they do have a stake? They should perhaps look at getting unions on board with amendments to the Fair Work Act to make it easier for small businesses to comply. To look at how difficult this is, we need only look at the failure of compliance by Senator Watt's old employer, Maurice Blackburn. If an industrial law firm can't get it right, how can a small-business owner with no legal training ever get it right? The fact remains that, except with those directly opposite, unions are less relevant than ever. In a global economy with complex supply chains, a union official is likely to be unqualified when determining how modern slavery might corrupt complex supply chains. This is the reason none were selected, and to suggest that anyone is incompetent for making a correct decision only serves to sum up the ALP: a party who are interested in protecting their rivers of gold from union fees and superannuation funds. The hardworking Aussie battler was left behind by the Labor Party a long time ago. Human rights are non-negotiable, and ending slavery is a critical goal. We should all be working together to achieve it.