• informal workers and businesses do not pay income taxes or contribute to social security schemes98 • lack of pre-determined hours, temporary nature of work and lack of long-term job security.99 One worker, who had arrived to a non-existent job, sought other work and described their visa as “my handcuffs”. Workers are often desperate to earn money to meet their basic needs and are often in debt from recruitment costs. Workers we spoke to reported great difficulty getting a new employer to offer employment that would allow them to apply for a job change under their visa. Workers often resort to informal employment under precarious circumstances. One worker explained they worked for free on ‘unpaid trials’ in the construction sector in hopes of securing regular, paid work. They accepted insecure work without employment agreements, with ill-defined hours of work and rates of pay, including periods of no pay. They worked long hours for $500 per week, well below minimum wage, and did not receive holiday pay. A large, accredited employer described a climate of competition within the construction sector. They reported that tied visas addressed the interest of ensuring that workers would not be poached by competitors. This employer paid for the recruitment costs of around $10,000. They felt that the tied visa provided security that the worker could not leave their company even if they were offered a higher payrate once in the country. These concerns were also echoed by the ILO in its 2023 ‘Guidance note: Wage protection for migrant workers’ which sets out that: “Labour migration governance regimes that impose employment restrictions on workers can increase vulnerability. For example, workers on employer-sponsored visas, which tie a worker to a specific employer, may be reluctant to complain about wage issues, as this could result in the loss of their employment and residence in the country of destination.”100 The New Zealand Productivity Commission’s 2022 report ‘Immigration – Fit for the future’ stated that, for a migrant, a tied visa “raises the risk of their exploitation.”101 The Productivity Commission noted other negative economic effects of restricting labour mobility, including that it can drive down wages and conditions for migrants and non-migrant workers.102 The report further noted that tied visas enable gaming of the system whereby “an employer could agree with a prospective migrant to an employer sponsorship so the migrant can migrate to New Zealand but without intending that the migrant remain in that employment relationship.”103 Problem: Tying of visas to a specific employer exaggerates power imbalance, is a serious human rights risk to workers, and is a primary system fault in facilitating migrant exploitation. Recommendations: Government: End tying of visas to a specific named employer. The tying increases the risk of human right abuses (See section 2.2.1 on pg 9). Concerns about adverse human rights impacts of tied visas are a common theme when speaking with migrant community stakeholders and in discussion with migrant worker advocates including their unions. 98 Ibid, paragraph [17]. 99 Ibid, paragraph [18] 100 22 101 Productivity Commission, ‘Immigration – Fit for the future’ report, p55. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2024-05/ pc-inq-is-immigration-fit-for-the-future.pdf. 102 Ibid p56. 103 Ibid p57. The Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) scheme in Aotearoa New Zealand: A Human Rights Review