NZ Govt announces RSE changes, accommodation an open question
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- New Zealand's government will implement stronger accommodation standards for Recognised Seasonal Employment (RSE) scheme workers over the next two years.
- Changes include a migrant exploitation protection visa allowing workers to break contracts and greater flexibility to switch employers.
- Decisions on specific accommodation standards are expected in September, while a landmark court case regarding worker pay and accommodation costs remains undecided.
New Zealand's government is introducing stricter rules for worker accommodation and employment flexibility within the Recognised Seasonal Employment (RSE) scheme. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford announced Tuesday that changes, to be phased in over two years, will offer enhanced protections for RSE workers.
Key reforms include a new migrant exploitation protection visa, enabling workers to leave their contracts and remain in the country for up to six months. The government also aims to simplify wage deductions and extend accreditation periods for compliant growers to six years. Stanford emphasized that workers will gain more freedom to change employers, ensuring they have "the same protection without compromising the core purpose of the RSE scheme."
Workers will be able to remove themselvesโฆ and access the same protection mechanism available to temporary workers in New Zealand. That gives workers the same protection without compromising the core purpose of the RSE scheme.
However, the crucial issue of accommodation standards remains unresolved, with decisions pending in September. The quality and cost of housing provided to RSE workers have been a persistent criticism of the scheme. Workers typically live in employer-provided housing for their contract duration. Stanford assured that while "exemplary" employers would be rewarded, those with compliance issues would face consequences.
The review of the RSE scheme, aiming for a "triple win" for industry, workers, and Pacific home countries, has been shaped by a significant Employment Court case. In Soapi v Pick Hawkesโ Bay Inc, three workers claimed unlawful pay deductions and inflated accommodation costs, leading to them being paid below minimum wage. The court found the employer made frivolous deductions, and the accommodation costs were only justifiable up to about 5 percent of wages.
When employers have demonstrated a really strong record of compliance, the system should recognise that. We also need to make sure that we are clear that there are consequences for those who donโt.
Originally published by Post-Courier. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.