Over the last few months, two modern slavery reporting bills have been introduced in New Zealand. In this post, we discuss those bills, as well as the possible path forward for corporate modern slavery reporting legislation in New Zealand.
Two members’ bills addressing modern slavery reporting have been proposed:
- The National Party bill: lodged by National Party Member of Parliament Greg Fleming on May 22.
- The Labour Party bill: lodged by Labour Party MP Camilla Belich on July 17.
As members’ bills, the bills have been lodged into the ballot process, which works similar to a lottery (with selected bills pulled from a biscuit tin). There are a limited number of slots for members’ bills in Parliament. When a slot opens, a ballot is held to decide which members' bill(s) will be introduced. Once a bill is drawn, the bill is introduced and scheduled for its first reading. Currently, 73 bills are lodged. Thus far, neither of the two modern slavery bills has been drawn. However, as further discussed below, there are other paths for a members’ bill to move forward.
As some of our readers will remember, in 2022, the then-Labour Party government (center-left) released a draft of proposed modern slavery legislation for public comment (read our posts on the proposed legislation and consultation here and here). In 2021, the Labour Party-led government had committed to a five-year Plan of Action against Forced Labour, People Trafficking and Slavery, a high-level framework aimed at minimizing exploitation both in New Zealand and internationally.
As part of the Plan of Action, the government committed to considering legislation to address modern slavery and worker exploitation in supply chains. However, the successor National Party government (center-right) deprioritized the legislation.
The current National and Labour Party bills are further described below. While the bills contain various other provisions related to modern slavery, the focus of this summary is the proposed corporate reporting requirements.
The 2022 proposed legislation went beyond disclosure. It also would have required companies to conduct due diligence on their operations and supply chains and take actions to address modern slavery. The 2025 bills do not include a due diligence requirement. They only contemplate disclosure, consistent with existing modern slavery laws in California, the UK, Australia and Canada.
Subject Companies
Both bills would apply to companies that are formed or do business in New Zealand, and with more than NZ$50 million in annual consolidated revenue during the applicable reporting period (currently approximately US$29 million). An entity also would be a reporting entity if it directly or indirectly controls an entity that meets the foregoing requirements.
In contrast, the 2022 proposal contemplated a NZ$20 million reporting threshold.
Modern Slavery Statement
Under both bills, subject companies would be required to produce an annual modern slavery statement. This would have to occur no later than six months after the end of the reporting period. The reporting period would be the same for all companies – the 12 month period from April 1 to March 31 of the applicable year.
The bills contain identical statement content requirements. This is because both bills are based on 2024 drafts by the non-partisan Modern Slavery and Trafficking Expert Practitioners Group, which was comprised of members from civil society, the business community and the legal profession.
The proposed mandatory reporting criteria include the following:
- The name of the reporting company and a description of its structure, operations and supply chains (both domestic and international), including any entities owned or controlled by the reporting company;
- A description of any modern slavery incident that has occurred within the operations and supply chains of the company and any entities it owns or controls;
- A description of any known or anticipated risks of modern slavery occurring within the operations and supply chains of the company and any entities it owns or controls;
- A description of the actions taken by the company and any entities it owns or controls to assess, prevent, address, mitigate and remediate modern slavery and the risks of modern slavery occurring, including due diligence and remediation processes;
- Details of (1) the number of complaints made to the company in relation to modern slavery and (2) any measures taken to investigate the complaints and to provide remediation for any incidents of modern slavery identified within the company’s operations and supply chains;
- A description of how the company assesses the effectiveness of actions taken that are described in the two immediately preceding bullet points, and how any related processes or policies are being continually improved;
- A description of any training the company provides in relation to identifying modern slavery to (1) its employees and the employees of entities it owns or controls and (2) the employees of any entities in the reporting company’s supply chain; and
- A description of any consultation undertaken by the company with its employees, those of its controlled companies and of entities in its supply chain.
Both bills would require the modern slavery statement to be published on the company’s website. It also would need to be submitted to an online public register to be established by the government.
Each modern slavery statement would be required to be signed by a director or equivalent manager of the company.
The bills are broadly similar to Australia’s and Canada’s corporate modern slavery transparency laws. However, the bills also go further. Both bills would require companies to disclose the number of modern slavery complaints and details related to those matters. In the future, Australia’s modern slavery act also may move in this direction. In its consultation (read more about the consultation here), the Australian government inquires whether it should add a similar disclosure requirement.
Enforcement
The bills provide for similar civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance. A company that fails to produce a modern slavery statement could face civil penalties. A person that knowingly makes a false or misleading statement in a modern slavery statement could be liable for civil penalties and imprisonment.
Under both bills, managers and directors also could be held liable for offenses if the underlying act or omission took place with their authority, permission or consent or they knew or could reasonably be expected to have known about the offense and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
Civil penalties for noncompliance would be capped at NZ$200,000 under the Labour Party bill and NZ$600,000 under the National Party bill.
Convictions for non-compliance would be published on the register for at least three years. The register would be required to identify the company, describe the offense and indicate the penalty imposed.
Anti-Slavery Commissioner
Similar to the UK and Australia, the Labour Party bill would establish an independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner responsible for monitoring compliance. The Commissioner also would more broadly be responsible for advocating for the elimination of modern slavery and providing guidance and referrals for victims of modern slavery. The National Party bill does not propose a modern slavery commissioner.
Next Steps
As noted above, to be considered, a members’ bill needs to be drawn from the ballot.
However, if 61 or more non-executive Members of Parliament indicate support for a bill, it can skip the ballot and be introduced to the House. This would require cross-party support based on each party’s number of MPs. To date, the Labour Party bill has received formal support from 34 non-executive members, while the National Party bill has only one supporter. MPs Fleming and Belich have indicated that they are working with their caucuses to find a path forward.
After passing into the parliamentary process (either by ballot or by gaining support from enough members), a bill moves to committee, which would include a stakeholder consultation process. If one of the bills is adopted as proposed, the resulting Act would come into force six months after Royal Assent.
