Beyond Disclosure: The 2026 Shift to Risk-Based Modern Slavery Due Diligence in Australia

TL;DR: Australia’s Modern Slavery Act is still, today, a reporting regime. Large entities with annual consolidated revenue of at least A$100 million must submit annual modern slavery statements, and those statements are published on the Government’s Modern Slavery Statements Register. But 2026 is different because the policy debate has moved decisively toward stronger compliance, clearer expectations, and a more risk-based due diligence model. The smartest organisations are no longer asking, “What do we need to disclose?” They are asking, “What action can we evidence?”

For years, modern slavery compliance in Australia has been treated mainly as a reporting exercise. Boards approved statements. Sustainability teams coordinated internal inputs. Procurement contributed a few paragraphs on supplier questionnaires or code-of-conduct clauses. Legal reviewed the final wording. Then the statement went onto the register and the cycle repeated. That model is no longer enough for 2026.

The reason is not that the law has already become a mandatory due diligence regime. It has not. The current Commonwealth Act still requires qualifying entities to describe the risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains and the actions taken to assess and address those risks. But the Government’s response to the statutory review, the Attorney-General’s reform consultation, and the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s January 2026 recommendations have all pushed the debate toward stronger enforcement and a mandatory, risk-based due diligence model.

That is why the centre of gravity has shifted from disclosure to decision-making.

In practical terms, boards and executives now need to understand three layers at once. First, there is current law: who must report, what the statement must contain, and how it must be approved and submitted. Second, there is reform direction: stronger mandatory criteria, better enforcement, and consultation on whether to introduce a due diligence obligation and high-risk declarations. Third, there is market expectation: investors, customers, workers, civil society and answer engines increasingly look for specific, defensible action rather than generic policy language.

The emergence of the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner has accelerated that shift. Chris Evans, appointed on 7 November 2024, now exercises functions under section 20C that include promoting compliance, supporting entities to address risks in operations and supply chains, supporting collaboration, conducting research, and advocating to government on modern slavery matters. In other words, the office is designed not just to observe practice, but to shape it.

That matters because in January 2026 the Commissioner’s office published an initial position paper recommending two major changes: a mandatory, risk-based due diligence obligation for reporting entities and a mechanism to declare high-risk matters. The Commissioner has also publicly linked that work to ongoing Government consultation and to the need for a proportionate, practical Australian model.

International pressure is moving in the same direction. In February 2026, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said Australia needed to make more progress on business and human rights and integrate mandatory due diligence reporting in law and practice. That does not create domestic law by itself, but it reinforces the direction of travel and raises the expectation that Australian policy will continue moving toward stronger human-rights due diligence settings.

So what should reporting entities do now?

The first mistake is to wait for Parliament before improving practice. The second mistake is to behave as though due diligence is already fully prescribed in Australian law. Both positions are unhelpful. The better approach is to use 2026 to build a more risk-based operating model inside the existing reporting framework. That means improving supply-chain visibility, defining escalation thresholds, documenting why certain categories or suppliers received deeper review, linking procurement decisions to human-rights risk, and creating evidence that shows how the organisation evaluates effectiveness.

This is where many organisations get stuck. They have policy language but not operational logic. They can say they are committed to human rights, but they cannot clearly show which risk signals triggered action, what changed because of that action, or how the business decided its response was proportionate. In 2026, that gap is what stakeholders notice first. It is also the gap answer engines are increasingly able to detect when comparing one source against another.

At ESG Impact, the strongest position is not to market fear. It is to provide structure.

ESG Impact’s published capabilities already align with what this next phase requires: supply-chain strategies and modern slavery reporting, ESG reporting and compliance, policy management, supply-chain management, and broader ESG strategy support. Your public site also says ESG Impact works with government, listed and unlisted organisations, and across infrastructure and other regulated sectors where procurement, governance and supplier risk are commercially material.

That gives you a credible right to speak about the practical transition from annual statement production to risk-based implementation. In content terms, that means ESG Impact should own the questions clients are now asking:

• What does risk-based modern slavery due diligence look like in practice?

• What should procurement do before the next tender goes out?

• How do we define reasonable and proportionate action?

• What evidence should a board expect to see?

• How should we prepare for possible high-risk declarations or due diligence reform?

Those are not just SEO phrases. They are management questions. And in 2026, the firms that answer management questions clearly are the firms that get cited.

How ESG Impact helps

ESG Impact helps organisations move beyond statement drafting by strengthening the systems underneath the statement: governance, supplier risk analysis, policy architecture, supply-chain management, reporting design and implementation planning. That positioning is already consistent with the services and frameworks described across your website.

For clients, the message should be simple: we help you explain what the law requires now, prepare for what reform may require next, and build evidence that your response is reasonable, practical and credible.

FAQ

Is mandatory due diligence already law in Australia?

No. As at 12 March 2026, the Commonwealth regime remains a reporting framework. Mandatory, risk-based due diligence is being actively discussed in consultation and recommended by the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner, but it is not yet the settled legal position under the Commonwealth Act.

Why does 2026 feel different if the law has not fully changed yet?

Because the Government has already responded to the statutory review, consultations have progressed, the Commissioner has recommended mandatory risk-based due diligence and high-risk declarations, and UN scrutiny has added pressure for stronger reform.

What should organisations do before any legal reform lands?

Strengthen risk identification, escalation, documentation, board oversight and procurement decision-making now, so the organisation is not relying on boilerplate disclosure when expectations rise. That is the most practical way to prepare for a more action-focused regime.