Sydney, Australia – The Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association (AUTWA) has initiated Federal Court proceedings against retail giant Kmart, alleging links between two of the company's garment suppliers and forced labor in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The application seeks to compel Kmart to produce documents demonstrating its knowledge and due diligence regarding these suppliers, which are listed on its 2024 and 2025 factory lists.
The lawsuit stems from concerns that Kmart's public claims of ethical sourcing and a supply chain free from forced labor may be misleading. As stated in a social media post by Drew Pavlou, "The Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association is taking Kmart to court for links to forced labour in Xinjiang. The application alleges at least two Kmart garment suppliers are linked to the use of Uyghur forced labour in the Uyghur region."
This legal action, represented by Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis, is described as a first-of-its-kind case in Australia aiming to hold retailers accountable for potential forced labor within their supply chains. Ms. Kanis asserted that despite Kmart's claims of ethical sourcing, "there are credible links between two of its factories and suppliers and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang." The Xinjiang region is widely documented for systemic state-sponsored forced labor and other human rights abuses against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim populations.
Kmart, owned by Wesfarmers, has expressed disappointment over the legal action. A company spokesperson stated that Kmart had invited AUTWA multiple times to discuss their concerns and had corresponded with their lawyers for over a year, providing extensive details about its ethical sourcing program. The retailer maintains that its program includes a comprehensive and mandatory compliance framework for suppliers.
Unlike the United States, which banned goods from Xinjiang in 2021 due to evidence of forced labor, Australia does not have similar import prohibitions. This lawsuit highlights the growing pressure on Australian companies to ensure their supply chains are free from human rights abuses, even in the absence of direct government bans. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for corporate accountability regarding ethical sourcing in Australia.