FINDINGS FROM RSE FIRST SEASON 2007-08

Bringing Pacific workers to New Zealand

Selection

In the first full season of RSE 126 employers saw 2883 overseas workers arrive of whom 83 percent came from the five Pacific kick start states. The bulk of these workers came from Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu (2247). During the first season, some of the recruitment difficulties experienced were due to the different aims of employers and Pacific states. Employers wanted to build a team of trained and experienced workers who returned each year and form a stable work force. Many preferred to recruit workers who have an established work history and are therefore more 'work ready'. Pacific states wanted to give as many of their citizens as possible an opportunity to come to New Zealand. Most Pacific states give priority to poorer citizens and those living in rural communities, many of whom have had no formal work experience.

From an employer's perspective, worker selection was most successful when they developed a connection with a particular community. This connection increased trust and confidence among workers and between workers and employers.

Pacific Governments have reviewed their selection procedures in light of what has been learnt from the first season. Greater emphasis is now being placed on locally and culturally appropriate selection than on ensuring that every individual has an equal opportunity to apply. Selection criteria have been revised to make sure they reflect the needs of employers for cohesive work groups and the demands of the policy.

Pre-departure briefing

There was widespread agreement among employers, Pacific States and New Zealand government officials that the pre-departure training was not as successful as intended^[6]. Officials in each state received some information and training from the New Zealand Department of Labour but very few were equipped to talk about life in New Zealand because they had no contextual understanding of the horticulture and viticulture work. The following quotes illustrate the type of issues encountered:

We did not understand some of the issues especially relating to house rent, our payments including tax and so on. We were told that house rent would be around $60 [a week] but we pay around $100. We would have appreciated if we were told the truth about this. - Vanuatu worker.

Further the short lead-in time employers had to recruit workers after getting ATR approval impacted on the ability of the Pacific states or agents to prepare workers thoroughly.

Pacific state officials were concerned they did not have enough time, or the authority, to go through contracts with workers to explain and/or query rates and deductions.

I had to explain about taxes. There's no income tax in (name of State). I had to tell them how it pays for roads and schools and hospitals and that everybody pays tax. The first employer had been in (name of State) all of three days to do the selection and the briefing. He told me he'd already explained all that, but of course, none of it sunk in. Three days is far too short. There's too much going on at that point. - Pacific government official

It is expected that pre-departure briefings will improve and worker expectations be better managed in Year two as workers returning home brief others about RSE and life in New Zealand.

Working and earning

Worker performance

For most employers the first season of the RSE policy has been successful. Employers were aware that the first season was a new learning experience for their workers and they would return more skilled (and therefore more productive) next season. The majority of employers who recruited from the Kick Start States (who responded to the survey)^[7] rated their Pacific workers highly for their dependability (8.82 on a scale of zero to ten where zero is very poor and ten is excellent), enthusiasm for the work (8.36) and productivity (7.27). Pacific workers were also more likely to be rated by the Kick Start State employers higher in relation to their dependability than workers from non-RSE/TRSE countries who participate through the TRSE, VoC and WHS^[8], and New Zealand workers. Likewise most workers said they were happy with their work experiences and would return for the 2008/09 season if they were offered work.

Earnings and savings

While many workers were satisfied with the amount they earned and saved, others, particularly those from Kiribati and Tuvalu, were disappointed at earning and saving less than they expected. A Department of Labour audit of wages and earnings (of mostly Tongan, Samoan and Vanuatu workers) showed that the average net return per worker (after deductions for airfares, food, accommodation, transport and health insurance) over the period September 2007 to July 2008 ranged from $2,871 to $11,869. As the following example shows, workers have achieved their goals:

I was one [of those] that came last year (during the pilot). I came purposely for making money for my children's school fees and I found that I met that expectation for my family. And now I'm back in New Zealand with the same purpose and I'm happy. - Vanuatu worker

Factors that affected workers ability to earn and save included the cost of accommodation, tax, pay deductions^[9] and work downtime. Pay deductions impacted negatively on some worker-employer relationships, leading to distrust and disillusionment on the part of some workers.

Living in New Zealand

The term 'pastoral care' is used to describe RSE employers' responsibilities for looking after workers' wellbeing while they are in New Zealand. Pastoral care includes helping workers access 'suitable'^[10] accommodation and linking them to community groups and services such as health care, shops and banks.

Pastoral care is a new requirement for employers and experience with managing pastoral care varied. Employers who have previously employed overseas workers under schemes such as Approval in Principle (AIP) took pastoral care in their stride. In contrast, three large employers (with between 338 - 687 RSE workers) described their pastoral care responsibilities as "onerous" because they are responsible for workers during out-of-hours and lack ability to enforce rules about behaviour during non work time. Questioning the parameters of employers' pastoral care responsibilities, one employer asked:

Pastoral care involves a grey area - where do human rights and pastoral care interact? Where does our responsibility start and stop?...Impossible to answer. − Large pipfruit grower, Hawkes Bay

Employers who used a pastoral care worker from the same Pacific nation as their workers described this arrangement as very successful. The pastoral care worker also acts as an effective conduit between employers/supervisors and workers in the workplace through activities such as translation, communication and problem solving. Some employers regard the quality of their pastoral care as a significant factor in workers wanting to return to them next season.

Overall the online survey findings indicated a third of employers with Pacific workers had no issues or difficulties in providing or arranging for their workers' pastoral care needs. Finding accommodation that is suitable for workers to live in for periods of up to nine months and is reasonably priced has been one of the most challenging aspects of pastoral care for some employers.

The qualitative research showed that some workers had issues related to variation in quality and cost and overcrowding. The issues around accommodation included employers' uncertainty about the number of workers they would be allocated over a season as well as uncertainty about the future of RSE which made them reluctant to invest in permanent worker accommodation. Indicative survey results also suggest that Kick Start State RSEs are more likely to have experienced issues in relation to their Pacific RSE workers and alcohol infringements compared to other employers. This may be partly a function of the fact that Kick Start State RSEs are more aware of alcohol infringements due to their pastoral care responsibilities.

Doing business better

Despite the inevitable 'teething' problems associated with any new initiative, most RSE employers are satisfied that the cost and time involved in participating in the RSE policy during the 2007/08 season has been balanced by immediate benefits they had gained. The most commonly reported benefit is a reliable workforce. One industry leader reported:

For the first time the fruit was picked on time and at the right time across all the industries, and the grapes were pruned on time and at the right time. That is an unbelievable achievement. - Industry leader

Cost-benefit comparison

At the end of the RSE season, most RSE employers believed the benefits of participating in the RSE policy outweighed the costs. For some the costs matched, or outweighed the benefits. Other employers said it is too early to comment on a cost-benefit comparison.

Other workplace benefits

Other benefits that RSE employers appreciated included productivity increases, improvements to produce quality, positive impacts on their New Zealand workers and an enhanced workplace environment.

Business investment and practices

Access to a reliable workforce appears to have encouraged some employers to make changes to business investment and practices. The results of the online survey show employers who recruited from the Kick Start States and TRSE employers were significantly more likely than non Kick Start RSEs^[11] and non RSE/TRSE employers to have invested in plant and equipment, make changes to recruitment practices, supervision and induction of seasonal workers and expand their business^[12].

Despite immediate positive benefits such as a reliable workforce, employers' participation in the RSE policy is based on a long-term business perspective. Employers view the 2007/08 season as one of investment - workers were trained and becoming competent in the required skills. Employers expect the substantive benefits of RSE to emerge over time as the most productive workers return in future seasons.

---