A bill that would make New Zealand’s biggest companies report on slavery in their supply chains has come back from a select committee with a recommendation that it be passed, leaving nine sitting days for Parliament to turn it into law before the House rises for the election.
The Education and Workforce Committee reported the Modern Slavery Bill back on 31 August. In its commentary on the bill, the committee says it “has examined the Modern Slavery Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed”. Every amendment it proposes was agreed unanimously, even though ACT opposes the bill as a whole.
The bill is jointly sponsored by Labour’s Camilla Belich and National’s Greg Fleming. It requires entities with revenue above $100 million a year to publish a modern slavery statement setting out how they identify, address and remedy slavery, trafficking, forced labour and child labour in their own operations and in the supply chains they buy from. Those statements go on a public register run by a registrar employed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The committee estimates about 1,250 entities in New Zealand currently sit above that revenue line.
It is the first bill introduced under Standing Order 288, a rule that lets a member’s bill skip the ballot if enough non-executive MPs back it. Belich told the House at the first reading in April that she hoped it would not be the last time, saying “often, when we can find common ground and we can stand together on important issues, that is when we can truly make enduring change for New Zealand”, according to the Hansard record of the debate. Fleming, who called it “an historic day”, credited Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, saying “without his support and his urging on this issue, we wouldn’t be here today”.
The committee received written submissions from 347 groups and individuals and heard 69 of them in person. Buried in the appendix is a detail worth pausing on. World Vision’s submission was supported by more than 1,500 named individuals, its youth advocacy group sent in more than 900 handwritten submissions from children, and Tearfund passed on the views of more than 1,600 people who went through its process. Very few bills in this Parliament have drawn that kind of volume.
Most of what the committee did was make the regime easier to live with. Businesses will only be captured if they clear $100 million in each of their two previous accounting periods, so a single unusual year does not drag a firm in. Statements will be due six months after a company’s own balance date rather than on a fixed calendar day. Companies that already file under Australia’s Modern Slavery Act 2018 will be able to lodge that Australian document here instead of writing a second one. And the transition is long. The committee recommends the first reporting period start after the law commences, which it says would leave roughly 24 months between enactment and the first statements falling due, stretching to as much as 36 months for some firms depending on their balance date.
The committee also narrowed a power it thought went too far. The bill as introduced would have let regulations set a different revenue threshold entirely. The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee objected, and MPs agreed that “setting a threshold that affects liability for civil and criminal offences is best reserved for primary legislation”. Regulations will now only be able to lift the threshold in line with the consumers price index, and never lower it.
Two changes went the other way and gave the regime more bite. The registrar will be able to demand information, order remedial action, and then publish the fact that a company has failed to comply. The committee notes the provision “is commonly known as a ‘name and shame’ provision” and is a key feature of the Australian regime. Firms will be able to seek a review of that decision within 20 working days. Penalties were rebuilt along the lines of New Zealand’s climate related disclosures rules, with offences for knowingly giving false or misleading information and liability that can reach directors and senior managers.
Rebekah Armstrong, head of advocacy and justice at World Vision New Zealand, told RNZ the penalties give the regime “some teeth”, with “civil penalties of up to $600,000 for entity non-compliance”. She said the bill was not perfect but “it is a great start for New Zealand to build upon. We really do need this legislation, we’re well behind other countries.”
One part of the bill did not survive. The version introduced would have amended the Public Finance Act so the Crown could not pay money to a company convicted under the regime. The committee said it supported the intent but worried the drafting could amount to double jeopardy, that it was unclear how agencies would apply it alongside existing contracts, and that a business had no way back once it was cut off. It recommends deleting that part entirely and encourages “future Governments to further consider introducing a requirement aligned to Part 5 of this bill as introduced”.
Government departments will be covered, but through a single consolidated statement prepared by the responsible Minister and presented to the House rather than department by department. The Crown stays exempt from penalties, which the committee acknowledged looks like a double standard, reasoning that “any penalties for non-compliance would be paid using public money”.
ACT’s differing view runs several pages at the back of the report and is the sharpest argument against the bill anyone has put on the record. The party says slavery is abhorrent and the law should target offenders, but that this bill “risks confusing the production of information about modern slavery with action that actually prevents modern slavery”. Its main practical worry is that the $100 million line will not hold. Large firms buy from thousands of small New Zealand suppliers, and ACT argues those suppliers will be asked to fill in questionnaires, trace materials and sit through audits. “A small supplier may face a choice between absorbing a significant new compliance cost or losing a contract with a major customer,” the party writes.
The committee itself flagged a hole it could not close. The bill applies to businesses “carrying on business in New Zealand”, which generally means a physical presence here, so many of the overseas online retailers New Zealanders buy from every day fall outside it. MPs said they were concerned this “may lead to unfair outcomes where New Zealand businesses are held to a higher standard” and left it for the first statutory review, due three years after commencement.
Whether any of it happens now depends on the clock. Parliament sits on 1, 2 and 3 September, then 15, 16 and 17 September, then 22, 23 and 24 September, and there are about 100 bills still waiting in the queue. The House rises on 24 September, Parliament is dissolved on 1 October and the general election is on 7 November. A bill that does not finish its second reading, committee of the whole House and third reading in those nine days lapses and would have to start again in a new Parliament. Armstrong said she wanted it passed before the election.
If you are still working out where the parties sit on this and everything else, you can find out which party matches your views with our voting tool.
Do you think reporting rules like these change what happens in a supply chain, or does the work need to sit with police and prosecutors instead? Leave a comment below and tell us what you reckon.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job 🙂
Leave a Reply