The problem: same name, different law
Both the United Kingdom and Australia have a “Modern Slavery Act” requiring large businesses to publish an annual modern slavery statement. Exporters to both markets often assume one statement covers both. It does not: the thresholds, the content rules, the registers and — increasingly — the enforcement teeth are different. And Australia’s regime is about to get significantly sharper.
The two laws side by side
- United Kingdom — Modern Slavery Act 2015, section 54: commercial organisations with annual turnover of GBP 36 million or more that supply goods or services in the UK must publish an annual slavery and human trafficking statement on their website. The statute lists suggested content but imposes no financial penalty for non-publication; the Secretary of State may seek a court injunction. In force as of 19 October 2026.
- Australia — Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth): entities with AUD 100 million or more in annual consolidated revenue that are Australian entities or carry on business in Australia must submit an annual modern slavery statement to a public central register, addressing seven mandatory criteria (structure and operations, supply chains, risks, actions taken, effectiveness assessment, consultation, and other information). Currently no penalties for non-compliance, but the Federal Anti-Slavery Commissioner is actively scrutinising reporting, and the Attorney-General can publicly name non-compliant entities.
Australia is changing — read the July 2026 announcement
On 16 July 2026 the Australian Government announced it proposes to strengthen the Act with: civil penalties for breaching reporting obligations, and a new criminal offence of failing to prevent modern slavery in the supply chain, aimed at entities with AUD 100 million+ consolidated revenue, with a defence where the company took “reasonable steps” to prevent it. Public consultation closed on 25 September 2026 and legislation is expected in 2027. For a Vietnamese exporter selling into Australia, the practical message is plain: the era of the statement as a pure disclosure exercise is ending. Build the “reasonable steps” file now — risk assessments, supplier engagement records, remediation logs — because that file is what the future offence will test.
A unified compliance strategy for both markets
Run one underlying program, two publications. The common core: (1) a supply-chain map with modern-slavery risk ratings by country and sector; (2) supplier codes and audit evidence; (3) a remediation procedure with at least one documented case; (4) board-level sign-off. Then publish separately: the UK statement on your website (signed, with a link from the homepage), the Australian statement to the register against the seven criteria. Keep the two consistent — contradictions between your UK and Australian statements are the easiest thing a regulator, journalist or NGO will find. And remember the direction of travel: the UK Government has consulted repeatedly on strengthening its own regime too, so build to the higher Australian bar and you will be ready for either.
Frequently asked questions
Our revenue is AUD 60 million. Are we caught by the Australian Act?
No — the mandatory threshold remains AUD 100 million consolidated revenue, and the government’s 2026 proposals do not lower it (an earlier review recommendation to drop it to AUD 50 million was not adopted). Voluntary reporting is possible and increasingly expected by large customers.
Can one statement satisfy both the UK and Australia?
One underlying evidence base, yes; one published document, no. The UK requires website publication with its own content expectations; Australia requires submission to the central register addressing seven mandatory criteria. Publish two aligned documents.
What is the “reasonable steps” defence likely to require?
The 2026 consultation has not fixed the final test, but the direction is clear from comparable regimes: documented risk assessment, proportionate prevention measures, monitoring, and remediation. Start building that file now rather than waiting for the 2027 legislation.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council