In a rare show of cross-party cooperation, National MP Greg Fleming and Labour MP Camilla Belich have joined forces to introduce a law against Modern Slavery.
Modern slavery is a broad term used to describe the exploitation of people for personal or commercial gain and includes slavery, forced labour, trafficking, and child labour.
Fleming and Belich have become the first MPs to invoke Standing Order 288, the so-called “Rule of 61”, which allows a private member’s bill to bypass the usual ballot process if at least 61 non-executive MPs support it.
Despite their ideological differences, the Bill will have support from New Zealand’s two largest political parties. For legislation addressing an issue as elusive and morally confronting as modern slavery, cross-party support increases the likelihood that the framework will endure beyond electoral cycles.
If enacted, the legislation would apply to companies and specified entities operating in New Zealand with annual revenue exceeding $100 million.
Those entities would be required to report annually on how they identify, address, mitigate and remediate incidents of modern slavery within their operations and to disclose those risks through statements lodged on a public register.
The statements would need to follow a prescribed format, be signed by an authorised person, and include detailed information about the reporting entity’s identity, structure, operations and supply chains (including controlled entities).
The framework draws from similar legislation enacted in the United Kingdom and Australia.
Entities that fail to report, or that make false or misleading statements, could face criminal fines of up to $200,000 or civil penalties of up to $600,000.
These enforcement mechanisms, and the significant consequences for non-compliance, move the proposed regime beyond just box-ticking.
The Bill is set to be introduced to the House on 10 February 2026, with the two co-sponsors aiming to have the Bill passed before the election on 7 November.
Fleming and Belich have taken an unprecedented route to have the Bill read in parliament, as a previous government bill was shot down by ACT Party leader David Seymour.
Seymour declined to support the Bill over concerns about compliance costs for businesses and because he considered the proposal to be “virtue signalling”.
While that characterisation has drawn criticism, it does highlight an uncomfortable reality.
Some of the most egregious breaches of minimum employment standards in New Zealand are committed by small to medium-sized enterprises, which fall outside the scope of this Bill.
Despite New Zealand being a developed and relatively humane country, the exploitation of vulnerable workers is, regrettably, far from rare.
The International Labour Organisation has estimated that approximately 8,000 people in New Zealand may be working under conditions of modern slavery. Our country has also been regularly criticised for falling behind international standards in this area in recent years.
The Employment Relations Authority regularly hears cases involving the exploitation of vulnerable employees, particularly migrant workers.
These cases often involve employers retaining and withholding passports, requiring workers to pay a premium for their job, non-payment of wages, controlling employees’ living conditions and freedom of movement and threats linked to visa dependence.
The policy statement of the Bill identified many of these examples as the types of modern slavery the legislation aims to tackle.
Whilst the Authority can impose substantial penalties on employers in these circumstances, and the Labour Inspector can ban these employers from hiring, the majority of the existing offenders would not be captured by the proposed regime due to their size.
So, whilst there is no doubt that this bipartisan bill represents a meaningful step toward addressing modern slavery, it may do little to address the exploitation that currently occurs in New Zealand on a day to day basis.
But the bill sends an important signal that modern slavery has no place in New Zealand’s society, and whilst it may not be a complete framework at this stage, it could be the platform for broader and more comprehensive reform.
Originally published in The Post
