Image caption: Migrants are not disposable! The QR code takes you to the petition.
Amid fresh attacks on their rights, migrant workers are fighting back.
Last year on 18 December, International Migrants Day, Union Network of Migrants (UNEMIG) joined with other groups to protest outside the office of Immigration Minister Erica Stanford, raising the slogan “migrants are not disposable workers.” Mandeep Bela, president of UNEMIG, said that “today is about recognising the immense contributions of migrants, but also confronting the harsh realities many face. Our immigration system has created a profound power imbalance, trapping workers in silence and fear.”
This launched an ongoing campaign. A petition and open letter were released in April this year, co-signed by the International Migrants Alliance Aotearoa, Migrant Workers Association, and other migrant rights groups. Their demands:
- End tied visas, decoupling work visas from single employers.
- Suspend the 12-month stand-down period, which requires workers to leave the country for 12 months after their visa expires.
- Implement reasonable English Language requirements, replacing rigid, one-size-fits-all testing that migrant workers currently face with flexible, reasonable, and role-appropriate language standards.
The call to action has potential to mobilise significant support, with a Horizon Research survey for Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission finding that 80 per cent of respondents want action taken to end migrant exploitation.
This comes as the Government introduces new anti-migrant policies, including the “Enhanced Risk Management” bill, which would dramatically extend the State’s ability to conduct searches, arrests and deportations. Migrants are also facing attacks on their dignity, as unscrupulous politicians once again resort to anti-migrant slander to score cheap political points. As well as promoting safety and security, migrants are defending this dignity. As Mandeep Bela states in the open letter, “every person in New Zealand, regardless of their visa status, deserves the right to safe work, decent pay, dignity and the freedom to speak up without the threat of deportation hanging over them.”
End Tied Visas!
My boss knew I couldn’t leave. He charged me a premium for a job offer and paid me half of what was in my employment agreement. I felt completely powerless. I had to choose between speaking up and losing my visa or staying silent and watching my savings disappear while living in financial and emotional hardship. I felt invisible, like my dreams and my dignity didn’t matter.
– Mary (name changed for protection), former hospitality worker, from the UNEMIG open letter.
The ability to choose who we sell our labour to is one of the few supposed freedoms workers have in the capitalist system. Work visas that prevent migrants from changing employers, such as the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV), subvert this basic right. In doing so, they put migrant workers at risk of exploitation and abuse.
Workers on these visas must apply for a Migrant Exploitation Protection Visa (MEPV) to leave an abusive employer. These visas last only six months, while AEW visas can last for up to five years. This creates problematic incentives, with migrants forced to choose between enduring abuse to stay on a longer-term visa, or putting themselves in a more precarious position to escape it.
The experience of construction worker Diego Rojas, recently reported in Stuff, is a case in point. When Rojas came to Aotearoa with his partner and daughter on an AEW visa, he expected a period of stability and the possibility of working towards residency. Instead, he found himself struggling to get by after laying a complaint against his employer.
Rojas was granted a MEPV, leaving his employer. After he reached the maximum duration of this visa, he was left to scramble from one short-term interim visa to another. Rojas estimates that he was unemployed or not legally able to work for about 16 of the 36 months he was here. At the time of the interview, he was seeking a temporary work visa to allow his daughter to complete the 2026 school year: “She’s happy, she has made friends and is adapting really well. I can see her growing up happy here and I want that [but] I’m running out of strength and ideas on how to make this work.”
The news is full of stories like Rojas’, with especially gruelling cases involving workers enduring sexual abuse or being forced to work without pay. It is no wonder that migrant workers are agitating for better. It is a wonder that so many dare to do so, given that precarious visa arrangements put them at greater risk of retaliation.
Remove the 12-Month Stand Down Period!
We arrived with nothing but hope. For three years, we worked from dawn till dusk, saved every dollar, and our daughter, who was born here, is now 2 years old. My employer wants to keep me on, but AEWV conditions state that I must leave the country for a year after my visa ends. We live in constant anxiety about being torn away from the life we’ve built. Our hearts are breaking.
– Maria and Michael (names changed for protection), migrant workers, from the UNEMIG open letter.
Hanging over workers on AEW visas is the mandatory stand-down period, which compels them to leave the country for 12 months once their visa expires.
The Union Network of Migrants calls this rule “cruel and counterproductive.” It can result in whole families being forced to leave the country, or in family separation if one parent manages to acquire a new visa but does not meet the requirements to support their dependents.
This requirement also heightens the risk of exploitation. “For those on capped or lower-skilled visa pathways, the pressure to avoid the stand-down period can drive migrants into precarious or informal arrangements with employers,” Mandeep Bela explains; “rather than providing stability, the stand-down period reinforces uncertainty, undermines family unity.”
Scrap Discriminatory English Language Requirements!
I have been driving buses in New Zealand for around 3 years. I know the routes, keep passengers safe, communicate with my depot and with passengers every single day. My employer has no issues with my work and performance and wants to keep me. But Immigration New Zealand requirements are that I must achieve an unreasonably high academic English test score which is very difficult for many migrants. It feels like a trap, not a fair requirement.
– Raj (name changed for protection), bus driver currently working in New Zealand on a temporary visa.
Bus drivers rallied for migrant workers’ rights at Britomart station in May, calling out current English language standards as “unreasonable and discriminatory.” Last year they raised the issue with RNZ, criticising English language requirements for skilled residence visas. “I have attempted PTE Academic six times and IELTS four times and spent almost $5,000 on English exams,” South Island bus driver Raj told RNZ, “I’ve spent about $30,000 moving here, and I cannot think of going back to start over.”
University of Auckland language expert Maria Treadway, quoted in the same article, shared the drivers’ concerns. She points out that the 6.5 IELTS score these workers are being asked to achieve is the same required of international students applying for master’s level study. “People [in the test] might be talking about comparing educational systems or global warming or environmental issues,” Treadwell says, “I don’t know how often bus drivers need to do that. There is a mismatch between the purpose of the exam and what some applicants actually need.” In April this year, drivers warned 1News of looming shortages as more workers arriving on the Transport Work to Residence pathway fail these tests.
Since June, language requirements have been extended to more workers. Now, workers applying for skill level three roles under an AEWV need to achieve an IELTS score of 4.0 or equivalent. This will impact thousands of workers in trades, hospitality and other sectors. Until now, as reported by 1News, “the requirement applied to only skill levels four and five, which together make up just 16 percent of AEWV applications.” This means more workers must fulfil tougher English language requirements that may not be relevant to their work.
It is absurd to demand that workers already performing their work effectively demonstrate unrelated English language skills, and arrogant of monolingual New Zealand politicians to cast aspersions on the language skills of multi-lingual migrant workers. Moreover, the Government is sending a clear message by insisting on an arbitrary level of English competence for migrants, while slashing funding for te Reo Māori and undermining its status in public life.
This message is explicit in commentary from Peter Elms, director of visas at Immigration New Zealand, who told Stuff that a higher English standard was necessary for residency because it “reflected a long-term commitment to living in New Zealand.” Te Reo Māori is an official language in Aotearoa, along with New Zealand Sign Language. According to Waikato University, there are over 160 heritage languages in Aotearoa, many of which have long histories and significant speaking populations here. Yet policy-makers are apparently so wedded to a monolingual, English-speaking New Zealand that only proficiency in English can demonstrate the “commitment” necessary to live here long term.
Of course, how strictly you are held to these standards depends on how much money you have. At the Britomart rally in May, union organiser Max Santiago pointed out that “wealthy investors are able to access the Golden Visa pathway without any English language examination,” a change which the Government made at the same time as they tightened requirements for working-class migrants.
Let’s Dispose of Anti-Migrant Politicians
The name of this campaign is well chosen. “Disposable” is exactly how migrants are treated in the capitalist system, as a “reserve army” of labour that can be drawn on when needed, and ejected when not. When questioned on the inadequacy of short-term MEPV visas for migrants escaping abuse, a spokesperson from immigration minister Erica Stanford’s office said that six months was considered sufficient to find new work. With striking callousness, they told Stuff that if someone is unable to find employment in that time due to a tight labour market, then “the expectation is that they will depart New Zealand.”
Short-term visas with onerous conditions make it easy for the State to get rid of workers when they are no longer useful to them. They also make migrant workers more precarious while they are here, creating optimal conditions for exploitation. When politicians stoke fears about migrants “dragging down wages,” what they are referring to in reality is the practice of employers leveraging migrants’ precarity to offer them worse wages and conditions, instituting a race to the bottom that impacts all workers. As if the moral case to oppose migrant exploitation wasn’t enough, this creates a material interest for all of us to fight these harmful policies.
Politicians are counting on precarity to prevent migrant workers from pushing back against being exploited – exploited by bosses for their labour, and exploited by politicians for cheap political points. This may seem like a safe strategy; after all, many migrant workers are not eligible to vote. With this campaign migrants send the message that they will not be abused without consequences. The more of their fellow workers who take up this cause, the stronger that message will be.
