The NZ Modern Slavery Bill 2026: what New Zealand employers need to know

For two decades, New Zealand has had no dedicated modern slavery statute. The Crimes Act 1961 covers the criminal end (slavery, trafficking, exploitation of migrant workers), the Employment Relations Act 2000 covers minimum standards, and the Immigration Act 2009 reaches employers who exploit visa holders. None of those laws ask a board to look across its supply chain and report on what it found. Australia has done that since 2019, the UK since 2015. New Zealand has been the standout.

That changed on 10 February 2026 when National MP Greg Fleming and Labour MP Camilla Belich introduced the Modern Slavery Bill (Bill 242-1) under a never-before-used Standing Order (SO 288) that lets a Member's Bill bypass the ballot with the support of 61 non-executive MPs. On 29 April 2026 the Bill passed its first reading 112 votes to 11, with every party except ACT voting in favour. It is now before the Education and Workforce Select Committee, with public submissions open. The sponsors have stated they want it through Parliament before the 7 November 2026 general election. If the Bill becomes law on that timetable, the reporting regime would commence six months after Royal Assent, putting the first statements due in 2028.

This is a guide for employers. It is not legal advice; consult a qualified practitioner for advice on your specific circumstances.

What the Bill does

The Modern Slavery Bill (formal short title in the explanatory note: the Modern Slavery Reporting Bill) is a disclosure regime. It does not create new criminal offences relating to forced labour or trafficking; those continue to sit under the Crimes Act 1961 (ss 98 to 98F) and the Immigration Act 2009 (s 351). The Bill puts a positive obligation on large entities to look across their operations and supply chains, identify modern slavery risks and incidents, take action, and publish what they did in an annual statement on a public register.

The structural logic mirrors the Australian, UK, and Canadian regimes. Criminal prosecution alone has not been enough to address forced labour in international supply chains. Most exploitation happens offshore in jurisdictions where enforcement is weak, and the brands and boards best positioned to influence conduct commercially are usually several contractual layers removed from it. Disclosure regimes use board-level accountability and reputational exposure to push due diligence into procurement decisions that criminal law alone cannot reach.

The Bill defines modern slavery by reference to existing offences under the Crimes Act 1961 (ss 98 to 98F) and to international instruments, including ILO Convention No. 182 on the worst forms of child labour and the UN Trafficking Protocol. The conduct captured includes slavery, servitude, forced labour, debt bondage, human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and the worst forms of child labour.

Who has to report: the NZD 100 million threshold

The reporting obligation captures public and private entities with consolidated annual revenue of NZD 100 million or more in a reporting period. The threshold applies on a consolidated basis to corporate groups and reaches both New Zealand-based entities and overseas entities carrying on business in New Zealand.

Three points worth noting:

The threshold is a hard line, not a sliding scale. An entity at NZD 99 million has no obligation to report; an entity at NZD 100 million does. Entities below the threshold can submit voluntary statements, and a number of New Zealand businesses already do under the existing voluntary MBIE framework.

The threshold mirrors the Australian Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) at AUD 100 million. The 2023 McMillan review of the Australian Act recommended dropping the AU threshold to AUD 50 million. The Australian Government's December 2024 response declined that recommendation. The NZ Bill landed at NZD 100 million as the price of bipartisan support; if the Bill survives select committee with the threshold intact, it will sit at parity with the Australian regime in dollar terms even though the Australian dollar is currently worth more.

The threshold reaches further than it looks. Many New Zealand subsidiaries of multinational groups will be brought into scope by the consolidated-revenue test even if their NZ-only revenue is well below NZD 100 million. The Bill also reaches overseas entities carrying on business in New Zealand, which means a foreign entity that operates here at scale cannot avoid the obligation by being domiciled offshore.

The seven content criteria

A modern slavery statement under the Bill must address seven content criteria.

1. Identity, structure, operations, and supply chains. The reporting entity's name, a description of its structure (including any entities it owns or controls), and a description of its operations and supply chains, both in New Zealand and offshore.
2. Incidents. Any modern slavery incidents that have occurred within the reporting entity's operations and supply chains, or those of any entity it owns or controls, during the reporting period.
3. Risks. Known or anticipated risks of modern slavery occurring within the reporting entity's operations and supply chains, or those of any entity it owns or controls.
4. Actions taken. What the reporting entity and any owned or controlled entities have done to assess, prevent, address, mitigate, and remediate modern slavery and modern slavery risks. This includes due-diligence processes and remediation processes.
5. Complaints. The number of modern slavery complaints made to the reporting entity, the steps taken to investigate them, and the remediation provided where incidents were substantiated.
6. Effectiveness. How the reporting entity assesses the effectiveness of the actions described above, and how its modern slavery processes and policies are being continually improved.
7. Training and consultation. A description of any modern slavery training the reporting entity provides to its own employees, to employees of entities it owns or controls, and to employees in its supply chain. A description of any consultation undertaken with those workers about modern slavery risks.

The statement must be published on the reporting entity's website (and remain there until the following year's statement replaces it) and submitted for publication on an online government register within six months after the end of the reporting period (mirroring the Australian regime's six-month rule).

The NZ criteria diverge from the AU criteria in three places. The NZ Bill explicitly requires reporting on incidents that have occurred as well as risks; the AU Act asks about risks and the actions taken to address them, but does not require reporting on realised incidents. The NZ Bill explicitly requires reporting on complaints received; the AU Act does not. And the NZ Bill explicitly requires reporting on training and consultation with workers across the supply chain; the AU Act does not. The NZ regime reads as a continuous-improvement programme with public accountability, with implications for how organisations design their underlying processes (more below).

Penalties and director liability

This is where the NZ Bill departs most decisively from the Australian Act. The AU Act, as originally enacted, contained no civil or criminal penalties for non-reporting, false statements, or failing to maintain a due-diligence system. The 2023 McMillan review identified that absence as one of the central weaknesses of the Australian regime. The Australian Government's December 2024 response agreed in principle to introduce penalties through subsequent amendments; that amendment work has not yet landed.

The NZ Bill goes there from commencement.

• Criminal fines up to NZD 200,000 for failures including non-reporting and providing false or misleading information.
• Civil penalties up to NZD 600,000 for the same conduct, as an alternative to or in addition to criminal proceedings.
• Public naming of entities that do not comply.
• Personal liability for directors and senior managers where the offence took place with their authority, permission, or consent, or where they knew (or could reasonably have been expected to know) the offence was being or was about to be committed and failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent or stop it.

The director-liability provision is a knowledge-or-reasonable-expectation test, not mechanical accessorial liability. It turns on what a director did or did not do when modern slavery risk was on the agenda. In practice it pushes directors toward documented oversight: regular reporting on the modern slavery programme to the board, board minutes that show engagement with the issues, and a clear allocation of responsibility within management. Combined with existing director duties under the Companies Act 1993 and the broader trend across NZ reform (climate-related disclosures, financial markets conduct, health and safety officer duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015), modern slavery becomes a board-level issue rather than a procurement-team one. The Institute of Directors has flagged this in its early commentary.

Where the Bill sits in Parliament

As at 30 April 2026, the Bill has passed first reading and sits before the Education and Workforce Select Committee with submissions open. The committee is due to report back on 31 August 2026. From there, the path to enactment runs through second reading, committee of the whole House (clause-by-clause consideration where amendments may be moved), third reading, and Royal Assent.

The sponsors want the Bill through all stages before 7 November 2026. Whether that holds depends on the committee timetable and the parliamentary schedule over winter. If Royal Assent lands in September or October 2026 and commencement runs six months later, the first reporting period would start in early 2027 with the first statements due in 2028.

Two factors could slow the process. The select committee may receive submissions proposing material amendments to scope, threshold, or director liability, some of which would force the sponsors to renegotiate the bipartisan compromise that got the Bill to first reading. The pre-election legislative agenda will also be congested. ACT, the only party that voted against the Bill at first reading, has signalled consultation and policy concerns. If the Bill does not pass before the election, the position will be reassessed under whatever coalition arrangements emerge.

How the NZ Bill compares to the Australian Modern Slavery Act 2018

The NZ Bill draws heavily on the Australian model and on the lessons learned from the Australian Act's first six years. Six points of comparison are worth pulling out.

Threshold (parity). AUD 100 million in Australia, NZD 100 million in New Zealand. The McMillan review recommended dropping the AU threshold to AUD 50 million; the Australian Government declined. NZ sponsors landed at the higher number as part of the bipartisan deal.

Mandatory criteria (broader in NZ). AU has seven criteria centred on structure, supply chains, risks, actions, effectiveness, consultation with controlled entities, and any other relevant information. NZ has seven criteria centred on structure and supply chains, realised incidents, risks, actions, complaints received, effectiveness, and training and consultation with supply chain workers. The NZ list pushes harder on operational reality and worker engagement.

Penalties (much stronger in NZ). The AU Act has no civil or criminal penalties as originally enacted. The NZ Bill includes both criminal fines and civil penalties from commencement.

Director liability (only in NZ). The AU Act puts no personal liability on directors. The NZ Bill puts directors and senior managers personally on the hook in the circumstances described above.

Anti-Slavery Commissioner (Australia has one; NZ enhances the Human Rights Commission's role instead). The Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Act 2024 (Cth) established the Commonwealth Anti-Slavery Commissioner; Chris Evans took office on 2 December 2024. New South Wales also has an Anti-Slavery Commissioner (Dr James Cockayne, in the role since 1 August 2022). The NZ Bill does not propose a dedicated commissioner. Instead, the Human Rights Commission gains an enhanced role, with modern slavery designated as a priority area.

Public register (parity). Both regimes publish statements on a public register. The NZ register is likely to be administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which already runs the existing voluntary modern slavery framework.

For NZ entities that already report under the Australian regime (because they sit inside an AU reporting entity's consolidated group or carry on business in Australia), the practical effect of the NZ Bill is a parallel domestic obligation rather than a new compliance build. Most of the data the AU regime asks for is reusable; the NZ-specific extensions (incidents, complaints, training and consultation) layer on top of the existing programme.

What NZ employers should do now

If your organisation is at or near the NZD 100 million revenue threshold, the work to begin is the underlying due-diligence programme, not the document. The document is an output. The programme is the work.

Confirm scope. Run the consolidated-revenue test for your group and check whether any owned or controlled entities (offshore subsidiaries, joint ventures) need to be in scope. If your NZ entity is part of an offshore group, check whether the parent is already a reporting entity under the AU, UK, or Canadian regimes; that affects how you coordinate.

Map operations and supply chains. Forced-labour risk in New Zealand concentrates in agriculture and horticulture (particularly seasonal labour), construction, hospitality, fisheries, and recruitment of migrant workers on temporary visas. Internationally, the risk concentration is well-documented in garments and textiles, electronics, mining, agricultural commodities (cocoa, coffee, palm oil, seafood), and personal protective equipment. A first-pass map should overlay spend, asset locations, and worker numbers against geographies and product categories known to carry elevated risk.

Build a risk assessment. Look at four overlapping factors: vulnerable populations (migrant workers on tied visas, women and girls in low-wage industries, children, refugees), high-risk business models (sub-contracting, labour hire, piece rates, tied accommodation, recruitment-fee charging), high-risk product categories, and high-risk geographies. Walk Free's Global Slavery Index, the US Department of Labor's List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, and ILO data are the standard external inputs.

Stand up a worker grievance channel. The Bill requires reporting on complaints received and on training and consultation with workers in the supply chain. That requirement only works when workers actually have a way to raise concerns. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Principle 31) sets out the effectiveness criteria for non-judicial grievance mechanisms. In practice, a credible channel is confidential, anonymous, multi-language, reachable by workers without corporate email accounts, and supports two-way messaging so investigators can ask follow-up questions without compromising the reporter's identity. For NZ workers raising concerns about their own employer, the Protected Disclosures Act 2022 provides the legal protection layer.

Train your people. The Bill requires you to report on training. That training has to be real: managers in procurement, recruitment, and operations need to know what modern slavery looks like in the categories they work with, what the warning signs are (recruitment-fee charging, document retention, tied accommodation, abnormal working hours, restricted movement), and what to do when they encounter them.

Coordinate with AU obligations. If your group already produces an AU Modern Slavery Statement, your NZ statement can draw on the same underlying programme while addressing the NZ-specific extensions. Decide now whether to produce one combined statement or two separate ones.

Brief the board. If you are a director of a reporting entity, the personal-liability provision changes how you should engage with this issue. Get the modern slavery programme onto the board agenda regularly, ask informed questions, and document your oversight.

Make a submission. The Bill is currently before select committee. If your organisation has views on threshold, director liability, supply-chain consultation requirements, or the public register, this is the window to put those views to the committee. Submissions close at 11.59pm on Thursday 28 May 2026.

How Elker fits in

Elker is a speak-up and case management platform used by organisations across Australia and New Zealand. It supports the lifecycle of a confidential concern: secure multi-channel intake with optional anonymity, two-way messaging that preserves anonymity during follow-up, structured investigation workflow, and board-level reporting on themes and outcomes.

For NZ entities preparing for the Modern Slavery Bill, Elker provides the operational layer that the Bill's complaints, training, and effectiveness criteria require. The platform supports multi-language intake (English-only channels exclude most workers in international supply chains), regional data hosting in Australia and New Zealand, ISO 27001 certification, and SOC 2 attestation. It is designed to operate within the Protected Disclosures Act 2022 and Privacy Act 2020 framework that already governs how NZ employers handle confidential worker information.

Elker does not replace the policy work, supply-chain mapping, supplier engagement, or board-level governance that make a modern slavery programme credible. It provides the speak-up and complaints machinery the Bill puts squarely on the page.