The Education and Workforce Committee (Committee) has reported back on the Modern Slavery Bill (Bill), recommending it be passed with amendments that bring the regime closer to Australia's model and make it more workable. These include allowing group reporting, permitting reliance on Australian statements, providing a longer transition period, and narrowing the liability test. The changes reflect a number of points we raised in our own submission to the Committee.

Businesses with revenue over $100 million should start planning now, even though the deadline for first statements has moved out. For businesses already subject to the Australian regime, look at whether you can rely on group reporting or an existing Australian statement instead of preparing a separate New Zealand one. That’s a great result: the Bill as introduced would have put New Zealand at odds with other jurisdictions in their reporting requirements, creating a unique reporting mechanism that would have been more onerous and less practical for cross-border businesses.

Why it matters

Around 1,250 New Zealand entities currently meet the $100 million threshold. If your business is one of them, these changes affect how much time you have to prepare, who can be held personally liable, and how much duplication you'll face if you already report in Australia. Several of the Committee's changes are designed to align with Australia's regime, which matters most for businesses that already operate, or report, on both sides of the Tasman.

Key Changes

• Closer alignment with Australia: The Committee has said its amendments are designed, among other things, to align with Australia's regime and give businesses reporting in both countries greater consistency. As introduced, the Bill already followed the general shape of Australia's disclosure-based model. The reported-back version narrows the gap further, particularly through group reporting and recognition of Australian statements (discussed below).

• Group reporting is now allowed: One of the most significant changes is group reporting. As introduced, the Bill captured both a New Zealand entity and any overseas entity that controls it as separate reporting entities, with no mechanism to consolidate their reporting. This meant that a New Zealand subsidiary and its overseas parent could each face separate reporting obligations on essentially the same material. This was an issue we identified in our submission as positioning New Zealand as an outlier compared to Australia and Canada. Australia’s Modern Slavery Act 2018 permits entities to report individually or as a group, reflecting the reality that modern slavery governance, due diligence, and reporting systems are typically designed and implemented at a group level. The Committee has now adopted that approach. Entities with subsidiaries can submit one joint statement covering the parent and all of its subsidiaries, rather than each entity having to report separately. For multinational groups already reporting at group level in Australia, this removes what would have been a duplicative New Zealand-specific reporting process and allows businesses to focus their resources on identifying and addressing modern slavery risks, rather than producing parallel reports covering the same ground.

• Overseas statements can now be relied on: A reporting entity that is also required to report (or voluntarily reports) under Australia's Modern Slavery Act 2018 can provide its Australian statement to the New Zealand Registrar, instead of preparing a separate New Zealand statement. In the future, this recognition can be extended by regulation to statements prepared under other overseas jurisdictions’ laws. The due date for an overseas reporting entity’s statement is aligned with the due date in the other applicable jurisdiction, rather than the standard New Zealand reporting period.

• More time to get ready: Instead of six months after Royal Assent, businesses will now have up to 24 to 36 months (depending on balance date) before their first modern slavery statement is due, and the reporting deadline will follow each entity's own balance date rather than a fixed calendar date.

• Liability is narrower: The Bill as introduced would have imposed liability on directors or “other persons involved in the management” of a reporting entity, which was a broad category that could have caught a range of managers. The Committee has narrowed this to directors and “senior managers” only, and liability now only arises where a statement is knowingly false or misleading in a material way. The Committee has stated its expectation that minor errors or omissions should not be treated as offences. The Registrar must also give entities a chance to explain or fix a problem before publishing information about their non-compliance (a "name and shame" power that is a key feature of Australia's current regime), and entities can seek a review of that decision.

• The $100 million threshold stays, but will move with CPI: The Bill as introduced gave the Government a broad regulation-making power that could have been used to change the revenue threshold (up or down), and therefore the scope of who is caught by the regime, without amending the legislation. The Committee has removed that power. The threshold can now only be adjusted by regulation for changes in the consumers price index. Any other change to the threshold would require an amendment to the Act itself.

• Less duplication for compliance teams: Entities no longer need to publish their statement on their own website. The modern slavery statement register, maintained by the Registrar, will serve as the central public record. The requirement for the Registrar to prepare an annual report has also been removed.

• Public sector reporting is consolidated: Public sector agencies will contribute to one consolidated statement coordinated by the responsible Minister, instead of each reporting separately, mirroring the approach in Australia. Public sector agencies are exempt from liability for offences, on the basis that any penalties would come from public money. This protection has been extended to local government entities.

• A softer approach on Crown funding penalties: The Committee removed a proposal to bar the Crown from paying money to a convicted entity, citing concerns about double jeopardy and a lack of any way to remediate and become eligible again. It has encouraged future Governments to revisit this.

• A few other technical fixes: The Committee also confirmed that strict liability offences under the Fair Trading Act 1986 will not apply to modern slavery statements, replaced a power allowing the Minister to direct the Chief Human Rights Commissioner's priorities with a lighter notification power (to protect the Commission's independence), and simplified the review cycle to two fixed reviews (at 3 years after commencement, then 5 years after the first review is completed) instead of an ongoing obligation.

Key differences between the Bill as introduced and the Committee's recommendations

What organisations should do now

1. Work out your due date under the new balance-date-linked reporting period, rather than assuming a fixed calendar deadline.

2. If you're part of a group, especially one with an Australian parent or presence, look at whether you can rely on group reporting or an existing Australian statement instead of preparing a separate New Zealand one.

3. The longer transition period provides a useful window to begin reviewing supply chains, policies, and reporting processes ahead of the first reporting deadline. Check your contracts permit you to request the relevant information from your suppliers.

4. Review internal sign-off processes for modern slavery statements, since directors and senior managers can still face liability for knowing, material misstatements.

What happens next

The Bill now moves to its next reading stages with the Committee's amendments incorporated. We'll keep you updated as it progresses towards becoming law.

Special thanks to Latesha Metzler for her assistance in writing this article.