Women, work and global supply chains: The gender-blind nature of Australia’s modern slavery regulatory regime

Vijeyarasa, R

Women, work and global supply chains: The gender-blind nature of Australia’s modern slavery regulatory regime

Vijeyarasa, R

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Australian Journal of Human Rights, 2020, 26 (1)
Issue Date:: 2020

In Progress

	Filename	Description	Size
	AJHR Accepted Manuscript.docx	Accepted Manuscript Version	93.76 kB	Microsoft Word XML	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is being processed and is not currently available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Vijeyarasa, R https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4581-4924	en_US
dc.date.available	2019-10-19	en_US
dc.date.issued	2020	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Australian Journal of Human Rights, 2020, 26 (1)	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1323-238X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/138832
dc.description.abstract	In 2018, the Parliament of Australia enacted the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth), which – despite its misleading and expansive title – primarily requires medium- and large-scale businesses to undertake due diligence to identify the risks of exploitation in their supply chains. This article argues that, despite its attempt to enhance the accountability of businesses, the Act is “gender-blind”, as it fails to acknowledge and address the divergent experiences of men and women with supply chains – either as workers or affected stakeholders. The shortcomings in the Act can be traced back to the limitations of the Joint Standing Committee’s inquiry, which called for submissions from interested stakeholders in the lead-up to the Act’s adoption. Although that inquiry received submissions from a broad cross-section of individuals and organisations, including civil society, it offered legislators few potential solutions for incorporating a gender perspective into the law. The lack of gender-responsive, good practice modern slavery laws in other jurisdictions further undermined the legislative drafting process. As a result, the Act largely disregards systemic gender inequality, and thereby fails to effectively prevent Australian companies from perpetuating or benefiting from it. At a minimum, the Act should have required companies to conduct gender-sensitive due diligence and collect gender-disaggregated data. If it had done so, the Act could have been regarded as a “gender-responsive” law that helps to address the gendered implications of global modern slavery.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Australian Journal of Human Rights	en_US
dc.title	Women, work and global supply chains: The gender-blind nature of Australia’s modern slavery regulatory regime	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	26	en_US
utslib.for	1602 Criminology	en_US
utslib.for	1608 Sociology	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	in_progress
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Accepted	en_US
pubs.volume	26	en_US

Abstract:

In 2018, the Parliament of Australia enacted the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth), which – despite its misleading and expansive title – primarily requires medium- and large-scale businesses to undertake due diligence to identify the risks of exploitation in their supply chains. This article argues that, despite its attempt to enhance the accountability of businesses, the Act is “gender-blind”, as it fails to acknowledge and address the divergent experiences of men and women with supply chains – either as workers or affected stakeholders. The shortcomings in the Act can be traced back to the limitations of the Joint Standing Committee’s inquiry, which called for submissions from interested stakeholders in the lead-up to the Act’s adoption. Although that inquiry received submissions from a broad cross-section of individuals and organisations, including civil society, it offered legislators few potential solutions for incorporating a gender perspective into the law. The lack of gender-responsive, good practice modern slavery laws in other jurisdictions further undermined the legislative drafting process. As a result, the Act largely disregards systemic gender inequality, and thereby fails to effectively prevent Australian companies from perpetuating or benefiting from it. At a minimum, the Act should have required companies to conduct gender-sensitive due diligence and collect gender-disaggregated data. If it had done so, the Act could have been regarded as a “gender-responsive” law that helps to address the gendered implications of global modern slavery.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/138832