It should also include effective deterrence and active processes of enforcement that meaningfully protect against the payment or acceptance of employment premiums from workers. • • • End the tying of work-visas to a specific employer. The tying of visas to a specific employer increases the risk of human rights abuse. It is important this is addressed. There are various models to reduce this risk. One proposal, advanced by the Productivity Commission, is to allow migrant workers to freely change between employers but ensure that movement is recorded and monitored both for ‘gaming’ and for adverse employer conduct.3 Another option includes restricting the worker to an industry, region or job type without tying them to a specific employer. This would ensure the worker uses the skills and contributes to the industry where the labour market need was identified, while reducing human rights risks. The AEWV scheme could look to previous immigration settings to assist the Canterbury rebuild as providing an example from which learnings can be taken. Ensure better support for migrant workers under the AEWV scheme including for the right to housing and health. Workers lack information on legal rights regarding their employment, tenancy and health. Workers also require support in navigating institutions and in reacting to adverse human rights experiences. While there are community organisations, advocates, and unions who provide this support, access to and resourcing of, these services appear to be piecemeal. Likewise, training for community support and migrant workers themselves would be a valuable investment. information) and receive specific information about ACC entitlements. A structured scheme of support (independent of employers) needs to be explored along with considerations of how it is funded. Reviewing the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme’s worker welfare and pastoral care standards including the recent 2023 policy review recommendations would provide some useful guidance. • Extend public health coverage to workers who transfer to the Migrant Exploitation Protection Visa. The current settings mean that workers who transfer from the AEWV visa to the Migrant Exploitation Protection Visa can lose public health coverage. This creates real problems for access to the right to health and is not consistent with the Government’s obligations to protect human rights. • Ensure effective remedies supported by government. The United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights set out that effective remedy includes “considering ways to reduce legal, practical and other relevant barriers that could lead to a denial of access to remedy”.4 To achieve this, there needs to be a review of the barriers to accessing effective remedies (a number are explored in this review). Government services need to be appropriately funded including provision of translation services, access to labour inspectors, and investigation of breaches including those reported through the ‘migrant exploitation hotline’. Consider how policy settings can be changed to ensure that workers in the informal economy can feel safe making complaints of migrant exploitation. • Consider changing policy settings so that they are enforceable given available resources. Currently stakeholders report that Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has insufficient resources to meaningfully monitor the tens of thousands of accredited employers that exist. Without a significant upscaling of resources, policy settings may need to be redesigned to better manage Increase requirements for employers to provide settlement support. This should include a requirement on employers to ensure adequate accommodation is organised prior to arrival and that workers are enrolled with primary health providers (not just a requirement to provide 3 Productivity Commission, ‘Immigration – Fit for the future’ report, p57. 4 UN Guiding Principles, Principle 26, p28, downloaded at https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/ guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf. 5