New Zealand’s struggle to pass modern slavery legislation in 2025 is drawing attention not just for its political friction but for its ethical consequences. With bipartisan support already evident, procedural stagnation has taken center stage. The prolonged delay is exposing supply chains, businesses, and vulnerable individuals to risks that could have long-term impacts on human welfare and national credibility.
The year has seen growing advocacy for legislation that addresses forced labor and human trafficking, but the political machinery remains sluggish. Meanwhile, New Zealand risks falling behind international partners who are strengthening their anti-slavery frameworks.
Legislative delays and the political landscape
Since mid-2025, two competing but aligned modern slavery bills have been waiting for progress inside New Zealand’s parliamentary “biscuit tin,” a system used to randomly select private members’ bills. Labour MP Camilla Belich’s proposal includes an Anti-Slavery Commissioner and mandates reporting for companies with revenue exceeding NZ$50 million.
In parallel, National MP Greg Fleming introduced a bill demanding transparency for supply chains from firms earning over NZ$100 million. Despite this rare show of cross-party convergence, both bills remain frozen in the random draw system, underlining how legislative tools can inadvertently obstruct urgent reforms.
Political will meets procedural inertia
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s administration faces criticism for a perceived retreat from prior commitments. Belich accused the government of “no meaningful leadership,” despite Luxon’s earlier statements condemning modern slavery. Meanwhile, advocacy groups warn that continued delays weaken both public trust and the credibility of Parliament’s moral commitments.
The economic and reputational costs of inaction
Data from 2022 estimated that NZ$7.9 billion worth of imports into New Zealand were linked to child labor or forced labor, affecting roughly 10% of the country’s total imports. That figure translates into NZ$77 per household per week, an unseen cost borne by everyday consumers.
This embedded exploitation creates ethical complications for New Zealand businesses and consumers, as well as potential trade complications. Nations like the United Kingdom and those in the European Union are increasingly demanding evidence of ethical sourcing in business agreements and any slack in enforcement may jeopardise current and potential business deals.
Investor and trade partner concerns
Both Investors Against Slavery and Trafficking Asia Pacific (IAST APAC) and the Responsible Investment Association Australasia (RIAA) have publicly stated that any legislative delay will cast the image of New Zealand as a reliable trading country in a negative light. Such bodies have highlighted that not taking action will make New Zealand a place where unethical goods that do not uphold the standards of other nations will go to waste.
The implication on trade may be dire, especially in a period where ESG (environmental, social, governance) compliance is becoming a priority in the global financial markets. The competitiveness of New Zealand is becoming more and more tied to regulatory compatibility with its partners.
Civil society pressure and parliamentary tension
Legislative inertia has been a particular concern of civil society organizations like World Vision New Zealand, Tearfund, and Trade Aid. Their campaigns focus on the physical plight of those who are caught in forced labour, and on the moral imperative of Parliament to take decisive action.
These groups have taken root among the people who mostly support modern slavery acts. The other key aspect in their message is that the concept of ethical supply chain and national dignity is not just a legal issue, but a wider social value.
Parliament’s procedural dilemma
Although the biscuit tin approach is just in structure, it sets constraints on time sensitive problems such as modern slavery. Very few of the bills of private character are ever brought to the floor to be debated in a particular year, and the presence of two bills of this kind awaiting selection at the same time has only increased popular impatience.
This was viewed as a policy priority change that removes momentum, as in 2024 the modern slavery advisory group was scrapped. It was not a move that international watchers suffered without noticing as one of the byproducts of political indifference.
Aligning domestic law with international developments
Compliance will involve systemic change in many companies. The companies are forced to map their supply chain, risk profile, and internal monitoring, and reporting systems. This will most probably require training staff, recruiting compliance officers and creating whistleblower lines.
Other industries are more prepared compared to others. Already, larger firms that have international presence might be covered by foreign modern slavery laws, providing them with a compliance advantage. Smaller companies, though, might need additional assistance with complying with the rules.
Addressing migrant labor vulnerabilities
With the increase in global awareness, firms that do not take action against supply chain risks could suffer reputational losses, consumer backlash, and investor pressure. Transparency failures are no longer easy to cover with new social-media dynamics and ESG scrutiny.
Companies that anticipate legislation ahead of time can have more robust stakeholder confidence and market benefits. On the other hand, those who wait until they are forced to act are likely to be taken by surprise in an environment of increasing accountability.
Business readiness and structural implementation
The legislative proposals in New Zealand are similar to the proposals of anti-slavery law evolving in the UK and the Modern Slavery Act in Australia. In both bills in Parliament, there will be compulsory disclosures, fines in the event of non-compliance and models on risk identification within supply chains.
Further, the proposed Anti-Slavery Commissioner would serve a similar role in the UK, where enforcement and establishment of standards would be centralized. These similarities indicate that New Zealand is not walking into the abyss but is instead simply following an emergent global standard that is integrating transparency with accountability.
Risk of reputational fallout
The prevalence of modern slavery is somewhat lower in New Zealand than in other countries, but migrant workers are especially prone. The agricultural and hospitality industry institutions are challenged on grounds of abuse of labour hence the need to have more laws other than punitive-protective laws.
Whistleblower, transparency and due diligence measures in the proposed laws counter these risks. Such actions provide moral clarity as well as operational guidelines to industries that operate in complex employment settings.
As New Zealand weighs its next steps, the stakes extend far beyond Parliament. The delay in passing modern slavery laws touches on ethics, economics, and international credibility. Legislative action now appears not only desirable but necessary both to protect the vulnerable and to safeguard the country’s role in the evolving global economy.