Should We Shelve The AEWV?
There has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) system and whether it is fit for purpose as the replacement for a large number of previous Work Visa categories. These calls have come off the back of an increasing number of migrant exploitation reports, where employers and other related parties are using the system as a means to make money by duping vulnerable and desperate people, looking for a new life here.
The AEWV was introduced as a means to reduce migrant exploitation and yet ironically it seems to be providing a convenient pathway for rogue employers and other actors to create even more chaos. However, if you dig a bit deeper, the reasons as to why all of this is happening become a little clearer and in our view, it isn’t the policy that is broken, but rather the way it is being delivered.
What is the AEWV?
If you aren’t familiar with the AEWV process, here is a bit of a run through for you. The AEWV or Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme was introduced in 2022, and replaced six previous, employer-supported Work Visa categories. It is now the main Work Visa option for those who secure employment and are supported by a New Zealand employer to come here to work. The key changes to those previous categories, that the AEWV introduced, related to a greater involvement by employers, a system where those employer became “accredited” by INZ and then a more streamlined process for the applicant.
The AEWV has three separate stages, instead of the previous single stage, which was largely undertaken by the applicant. In this new system, the process works as follows:
An employer, seeking to recruit a migrant worker submits an application for “Accreditation” to INZ. Within this they declare they are financially stable, a genuine employer and no one within the business has had any issues with the employment regulators. It is designed to be a thorough ‘background check’ on the employer to ensure that they are the real deal.
Once Accreditation is secured, the employer then submits a “Job Check” with INZ, where they show that the role they are trying to fill cannot be filled from within the local labour market. This would usually involve providing evidence of advertising, a draft agreement (to ensure the terms of employment are all in order) and evidence of the remuneration on offer and skills required. Again this is intended to be a thorough check of the job being offered and that there is a genuine need for the migrant applicant to fill that position.
If the Job Check is approved, then the employer is given a token (or multiple tokens) which they can use to invite the potential migrant applicant to apply for a Work Visa. In theory the employer and job offer have been screened and approved, so this last step is to confirm that the applicant has the right skills for the job, and is of good health and character.
These three steps were designed to provide a more robust temporary Work Visa process, which also gave INZ the ability to monitor employers and ensure that there were doing right by the system and right by the migrants as well. Becoming “Accredited” meant you had been vetted by the Government, found to pass muster and have secured a sought after permission to employment migrant workers.
For the most part and certainly for all of the clients we see coming through the system, this process works well. Employers are legitimate, with real roles to fill and they are offering genuine jobs to willing migrants, supporting them through the whole process. Generally the higher the level of skill involved, the less risk there is. However on the fringes of the lower skilled market, particularly in the construction sector, there are those, looking to use this system to make a quick dollar (or several thousand).
Why Is It Not Working?
Well actually it is working, although not exactly as it was intended, at least not entirely. Of the tens of thousands of Work Visas approved under this scheme the overwhelming majority are for genuine roles, where the migrant is now happily employed and adding to our growing talent pool. Accreditations are being approved, Visas are being processed and migrants are filling shortages. However there are some exceptions to this and those exceptions, whilst still a very small percentage of the overall total, appear to be increasing from pre-AEWV levels. Some might argue that this increase, is reason enough to go back to the drawing board or back to previous policy settings, but obviously things are never that simple.
There is essentially one weak-spot in this three step-process which is seemingly creating a secondary market for Visas. That secondary market is a place where rogue employers and “employment agencies” are treating the job check process like a sort of Visa currency. They are then colluding to effectively sell these job check tokens to migrants in exchange for the opportunity to secure a Work Visa - the problem is there is no job at this end and the migrant ends up stuck here, out of pocket, out of income and out of options.
The weak-spot isn’t necessarily the policy itself but in how it is being delivered and to understand that, there is a whole backstory that revolves around, the chaotic border re-opening, processing backlogs and INZ being advised to treat all of these applications with a ‘light-touch’. That approach has meant that it is often all too easy for a less than genuine employer or agency to create the above situation and the opportunity to game the system.
So how does these scams work?
It is really simple in practice. Those who want to run this type of Visa “scam” know that INZ are not really looking at any of the three steps of the AEWV in great detail - so they create a business, submit an Accreditation application and see it being approved relatively quickly. There is not a lot of checking going on, where the “employer” has answered the questions on the form correctly - very little, if any supporting evidence is required and the focus is on speedy turnarounds, rather than quality assessments. The same then goes for the job check process. We have heard of instances where relatively new companies, secure Accreditation under the ‘high-volume’ option as “triangular employers” (where the employer hires and then outsources the applicant) and they then go on to secure job check tokens in the hundreds - that’s right hundreds.
With the tokens secured, they are then able to sell those off to the highest bidder (migrant) and charge a premium to that applicant for the token - albeit that premium is never paid to the employer but through a complicated series of related business entities, to avoid breaking the rules entirely (migrants are not allowed to be charged a fee for the job or recruitment process).
The migrant is sometimes complicit in this, but usually has no idea and genuninely believes there is a job waiting for them to get stuck into. They arrive here, and are then advised that the work has dried up, there is no money and they will have to figure it out for themselves. The reality is, there never was any work or any job - they have just been conned out of thousands of dollars.
The flaw in this process, that allows all this to happen more frequently, is not the policy, or the criteria but the fact the rules aren’t being implemented correctly, nor is much being checked by INZ. If I was an immigration officer, looking at a two year old “construction” business asking for hundreds of job check tokens at all once, I would be asking for a lot more than just an online form. Yet they aren’t and these tokens are being issued in huge volumes to these rogue outfits.
Of course, INZ are now doing checks on employers who are already Accredited as part of their ongoing compliance requirements, but the number is so small its insignificant and hardly much of a deterrent - it is also usually too late, because by the time those checks are done, the rogue employer has made their money and vanished.
One of the saddest parts is that these schemes tend to target lower skilled occupations and migrants who are absolutely desperate, from countries where incomes are already low, meaning these applicants are often borrowing money to pay the ludicrous fees, to end up here with no job at all. In a lot of cases the villains behind these scams are former migrants themselves, who know how to target people from their home countries.
Again, this still occupies a very small portion of all the AEWV’s being issued but ultimately any exploitation at all is intolerable.
Should We Shelve The AEWV?
My response is no, we shouldn’t. The simple fact is that no policy, rules or law will completely stamp out these problems, because people with a mind to make money in this way, are incredibly good at finding loopholes. I also believe that the AEWV system as it was designed, provided a good framework for simplifying the system and offering checks and balances - at least far more than we have had before.
The problem is not the policy but the method in which it is being delivered. When INZ were under fire in the media for being too slow, too clunky and too litigious in processing these applications, some bright spark decided that the way to fix that problem was to basically just let everything pass through. If an employers declare they are of good standing, then give them the green light. Check nothing, question nothing and do nothing, unless there is a giant red-flag. It appears it would have to be a flag the size of the South Island before INZ takes notice.
If INZ were to apply the criteria as they were written, to entities that were relatively newly established or had links to other related organisations with some history or form, we might see a much cleaner process and less media articles of unemployed and unpaid migrants. I don’t specifically blame INZ for this, because ultimately the buck stops with the Minister and the previous Minister was quick to try and fix a media firestorm by basically side-stepping what should be robust and thorough verification process.
It would not be hard for INZ to triage the good from the questionable employers and a few tweaks to the application form would quickly allow anyone to work out when more questions need to be raised. In fact for most of these rogue entities, creating these schemes the mere thought of being asked to provide paperwork, would seem them running for the hills.
As an example if INZ were to request at least some form of official evidence as part of the Accreditation process, to support the “claims” being made by some of these companies, those who were trying to pull a fast one, probably wouldn’t bother to apply.
This would then also allow the vast majority of genuine and willing employers who are doing the right thing to pass through the system, without extra administration or work to do. The AEWV could then deliver on the positive aspects, in terms of a faster processing time, less longer-term admin for employers and applicants and a more robust and workable Visa system.
I dont think we need to reinvent the reinvented wheel…we just need to make sure every spoke is finely tuned and the tires are fully inflated for this system to work as it was intended and as it does for the vast majority of employers using it. We cannot let a few very rotten apples, spoil it for the rest and there is a real reputational damage issue at stake here. The Government needs to move quickly to reign these small, but very dangerous numbers of rogue employers and related “agencies” in.
What Can You Do?
If you are planning the move, my advice is pretty simple - if you are suddenly offered a job out of the blue, or apply for one through a “scheme” and there is a very relaxed or non-existent recruitment process - that’s a red flag. Similarly if you are told that the job is conditional on you using this specific adviser or doing something unrelated that involves a fee, then ask why. Basically if it doesn’t feel right or it sounds too easy and simple, there is probably a good reason as to why that is the case.
Employers (or their recruiters) cannot force you to use a certain adviser, nor they can request a fee for the offer of employment. They cannot pass on costs for the recruitment process or their role in the Visa process either.
For most of you, this will never be an issue, because for most of you, you will secure a job that is genuine, legitimate and exists - but it never hurts to know what to look out for.
In the meantime, I hope that the Government realises that sometimes a process is designed for a reason and just because you need to score some points with the media or voters, doesn’t mean you can sidestep the process.
Until next week.
