What is New Zealand's proposed Modern Slavery Bill and how did it progress through Parliament?

New Zealand's proposed Modern Slavery Bill has bipartisan support and passed its first reading in Parliament. It was co-sponsored by Greg Fleming MP (ACT Party) and Camilla Belich MP (Labour), creating a cross-party partnership that enabled the legislation to bypass the standard members' ballot under Standing Order 280. The bipartisan approach and Prime Ministerial support have accelerated the Bill's progress significantly. The proposed regime is broadly aligned with Australia's Modern Slavery Act framework but introduces more prescriptive reporting obligations and potential penalties for non-compliance.

How does the NZ Modern Slavery Bill compare with Australia's existing framework?

The NZ Modern Slavery Bill is broadly aligned with Australia's existing Modern Slavery Act framework but goes further in several areas. It introduces more prescriptive reporting obligations specifying what must be included in modern slavery statements in more detail than Australia currently requires. It adds potential personal liability for directors and those involved in preparing statements that are misleading, or where a statement is not filed or made available. It also introduces a dual reporting obligation that sits with both the New Zealand entity and its ultimate parent company in relation to the entire group, regardless of where that parent is domiciled. Australia's Act in its current form does not impose equivalent personal liability or equivalent parent-company group reporting obligations.

What is the revenue threshold for reporting under the NZ Modern Slavery Bill and who does it apply to?

The obligation to report applies to New Zealand entities (and their ultimate parent companies) carrying on business in New Zealand with consolidated revenue of NZD 100 million or more. In other major currency equivalents, the threshold is approximately USD 56 million, GBP 42 million, EUR 50 million, or AUD 80 million. The obligation applies not only to New Zealand-based entities, it will also be particularly relevant for all banks and insurers operating in New Zealand via a branch mechanism, organisations doing business with large businesses in New Zealand, and investors in New Zealand. The dual obligation means that where an NZ entity meets the threshold, the reporting obligation also falls on its global ultimate parent, wherever that parent is domiciled.

What personal liability provisions does the NZ Modern Slavery Bill introduce for directors?

The NZ Modern Slavery Bill introduces personal liability for directors and those involved in preparing modern slavery statements that are misleading, or where a statement is not filed or made available as required. This goes beyond the reporting obligations in Australia's existing Modern Slavery Act, which does not currently impose personal liability on individual directors or statement preparers. For global boards with New Zealand-connected entities, this provision means that NZ modern slavery compliance cannot be treated solely as a corporate reporting exercise, it creates individual accountability for those overseeing and preparing disclosures.

What practical steps should organisations take now to prepare for the NZ Modern Slavery Bill?

Organisations should: determine whether any entities in their group carry on business in New Zealand and whether consolidated group revenue meets or is likely to meet the NZD 100 million threshold; identify who the global ultimate parent entity is for NZ reporting purposes, as the dual obligation means that parent will also be in scope; assess whether existing modern slavery reporting programmes (including Australian MSA statements) would satisfy the NZ Bill's more prescriptive content requirements, or whether gap-filling is needed; review director and governance accountability frameworks to understand who would be personally liable for misleading statements or non-filing; and begin building or strengthening supply chain risk assessment and due diligence processes that can generate the evidence a more prescriptive regime will require, rather than waiting for enactment.

Home » Resources » Between Two Powers: What US-China Tensions Mean for Your Third-Party Due Diligence

Between Two Powers: What US-China Tensions Mean for Your Third-Party Due Diligence

Amanda Ong
October 14, 2026

Between Two Powers: What US-China Tensions Mean for Your Third-Party Due Diligence
Wednesday, 12 November 2026 | 9:00 AM SGT / 12:00 PM AEDT
In conversation with Robinson White

Understanding the third parties your organisation does business with has always been a core compliance priority. But escalating US-China strategic tensions have added a layer of geopolitical complexity that has fundamentally changed the nature of third-party risk, particularly for organisations with supply chains or counterparties that have a China nexus.

In this practitioner conversation, Tim Robinson and Michael White share what they learned managing large-scale third-party risk programmes inside complex, multinational resources companies, and what that experience tells them about navigating the current landscape.

Who Should Join

This session is designed for compliance, legal and procurement leaders in resources, extractives, and any sector with material China exposure who are looking for practical insight from people who have managed these risks from inside the business, not from the outside looking in.

Webinar Highlights

Why US-China tensions change the risk profile: how the interplay between US sanctions designations and China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law can increase legal exposure in both countries while complicating due diligence efforts
Where due diligence needs to be smarter: why identifying red flags in ownership structures and strategic sector exposures matters more than ever, and what options exist when in-country verification in China can itself introduce risk
Moving from identification to defensible action: what a monitoring framework that picks up designation changes, adjusts risk ratings in real time, and demonstrates issues are being managed actually looks like in practice

Speakers

Tim Robinson | Principal, Robinson White
Tim spent over a decade leading compliance and third-party risk functions at BHP and Orica, where he managed large-scale programmes across complex, multinational operations. He now advises organisations on third-party risk management, compliance programme design, and regulatory response.
Michael White | Principal, Robinson White
Michael held senior compliance and risk roles at BHP and Woodside, with direct responsibility for third-party due diligence across supply chains with significant China and Asia-Pacific exposure. He advises clients on practical risk management in high-stakes regulatory environments.
Ian Gallagher | Senior Business Development Manager, Ethixbase360
Martin Money | Managing Director, APAC, Ethixbase360

compliance, Ethixbase360, riskmanagement, supply chain, Third Party Risk Management

Turn Risk to Resilience

Get the 360° visibility you need to protect your business and move faster

Between Two Powers: What US-China Tensions Mean for Your Third-Party Due Diligence

Product

About Us

Connect

News & Resources