Immigration Minister Erica Stanford.
Photo: RNZ/Samuel Rillstone
A recently released Cabinet document shows that migrants who have been scammed with a fake job offer will no longer be eligible for a Migrant Exploitation Protection Visa.
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford announced two weeks ago that the maximum time migrants could hold a protection visa (MEPV) was increased. halved to six months.
But the government document shows that the changes will also make migrants ineligible for the MEPV if they have paid premiums for jobs abroad and discover there are no jobs on arrival.
In the paper, Stanford pointed to figures showing that 2,000 MEPVs were approved in the last fiscal year, up from 200 the year before. One of the factors she cited was the possibility of extending the MEPV, and the support of $100 per day to affected unemployed migrants from October to March this year.
“While a single cause is difficult to isolate, I believe these figures indicate that current conditions (and previous short-term financial support) may have created an incentive for offshore agents to charge premiums for non-existent jobs , knowing that the highly facilitating MEPV institutions offer open work rights for up to 12 months.
“This poses an excessive risk to the immigration system and creates perverse incentives for migrants to attempt to enter and remain in New Zealand. This may lead to further non-genuine employment offers and/or false claims of exploitation.
“There is also a risk that the current enabling environment, combined with a lighthearted approach, encourages people who are not in a truly exploitative situation to sign up for the MEPV.”
The duration of the MEPV should allow sufficient time for an exploited migrant to find other work, but should not create “perverse incentives” to wrongly apply for a MEPV, she said.
“A year is too long for migrants to look for alternative work. Migrants with in-demand transferable skills should be able to find alternative employment within the first six months. A year can also leave migrants in a more financially precarious situation as they are ineligible for financial support while on a MEPV.”
Announcing the changes, Stanford said the government was “updating the definition of migrant exploitation to specify that exploitation must be linked to a genuine employment relationship.” In the document to the cabinet, she makes it clear that this means that ‘non-real’ jobs should not be considered as exploitation of migrants.
“There are other protections for such scenarios,” she said. “These migrants can apply to have the conditions of their visa changed, or they can apply for a new visa.
“Narrowing the definition of exploitation to exclude people where there is no employer is likely to exclude some people who have paid a premium or excessive payment.”
Migrants who are lawfully dismissed or who are not paid because the company has been liquidated are now also excluded.
“Although it is unfortunate for individual migrants, dismissal is not exploitation. Those who have been dismissed must use any notice period to make arrangements to return home to avoid being liable for deportation.
“I also intend to explicitly exclude from the definition of migrant exploitation for MEPV purposes the non-payment of final wages due to a liquidation. Absent other bad practices, this is a relatively minor employment breach (which I note could be significant in terms of pay scale) that could be remedied under existing claims procedures.”