July 8, 2026 | The Strategist | By Elijah Pockell-Wilson
Australia is leaving its market exposed to goods tied to Uyghur forced labour. As the United States and European Union move to block such goods, countries with weaker import controls risk becoming destination markets for products facing tougher scrutiny elsewhere. For Australia, this risk is not theoretical; it’s happening now. In my report for the Uyghur Human Rights Project, published last month, I found that in 2024, Australia imported about US$4.82 billion (A$6.95 billion) in goods from China from high-risk sectors linked to the forced labour of Uyghurs.
These figures do not show that every good in the high-risk sectors identified in the report – including cotton textiles and apparel, solar inputs, aluminum and chemical products – was made using forced labour. Rather, they show Australia’s exposure to sectors where forced-labour risk is well documented and independent verification remains difficult.
Since 2017, Chinese authorities have arbitrarily detained large numbers of Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples in ‘vocational education and training’ facilities, alongside broader patterns of detention and imprisonment in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. This repression has also extended into the region’s economy through state-directed labour transfer programs and restrictions that make independent supply-chain verification extremely difficult.
The region remains central to Chinese cotton, textile, solar, and industrial supply chains that feed into ordinary consumer goods, clean energy and industrial materials. While not every product in these sectors is tainted, they are at a high risk of involving Uyghur forced labour, and Australia lacks a reliable system to distinguish goods made with forced labour from those that are not.
Australia’s current laws do not meet the scale of the problem. The Modern Slavery Act requires covered companies to report on supply chain risks but does not require them to remove high-risk goods from their supply chains. The act also does not create a forced-labour import ban. Reporting can expose risk, but it can’t stop a shipment from entering the country. This gap in enforcement places responsibility on companies rather than relevant government authorities. Some companies may investigate risk seriously. Others may not. Either way, Australians should not have to depend on voluntary action to know whether everyday goods they buy and use are linked to slavery.
In 2025, the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women’s Association brought a case against department store chain Kmart Australia. The association, which filed a lawsuit under consumer protection law, alleges that Kmart may have misled consumers about its exposure to forced-labour risk and is seeking disclosure of its supply-chain information.
Kmart says it opposes slavery in all forms, including forced labour. ‘Our modern slavery risks are assessed as part of an ongoing and overarching human rights risk management process,’ the retailer adds.
The association’s lawsuit points to a larger problem in Australia’s modern slavery framework. Importers bringing in goods from high-risk sectors should be required to provide credible evidence that their products are not linked to forced labour. Customs authorities should have the power to stop goods when the evidence is weak. This would shift responsibility away from consumers and onto the companies and agencies best placed to identify forced-labour risk before goods reach the Australian market.
Without these measures, Australia will remain out of step with larger markets that are moving towards stronger import controls. The US has adopted a stronger import control system through the Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act. The EU is also moving towards a ban on forced labour. These larger markets are beginning to treat forced-labour risk as something to stop at the border, not just something for companies to report. If Australia doesn’t strengthen its own laws, goods facing tougher scrutiny in the US and Europe may be redirected onto Australian shelves.
My report describes this trend as ‘redirected risk.’ Stronger enforcement in one market does not automatically remove forced-labour goods from global supply chains. It can push risk towards markets where imports face less scrutiny. Japan similarly faces this exposure, as the report shows. Australia has recognised this risk but has not built a system strong enough to address it. Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner Chris Evans has warned that the current system is too weak. Evans has backed stronger laws, including mandatory due diligence and high-risk declarations, so companies must act on modern slavery risks rather than simply reporting them.
Australia should close this gap by adopting a forced-labour import ban, strengthening customs powers and requiring importers to trace goods in high-risk sectors. Australia should also work with its global trading partners, including the US, through information-sharing on high-risk sectors and importers. Disclosure can reveal exposure to forced labour. It cannot, by itself, stop it. If Australia wants to keep goods made with Uyghur forced labour out of Australian homes, businesses and supply chains, it must give border authorities the tools to act.
Read the op-ed in The Strategist: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-door-is-still-open-to-goods-made-with-uyghur-forced-labour/
Elijah Pockell-Wilson is a research associate at the Uyghur Human Rights Project. He holds bachelor’s degrees in economics and in international political economy from the University of Puget Sound.
